DATE OF FILING : 8.2.2011
BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI
Dated this the 26th day of September, 2011
Present:
SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT
SMT.BINDHU SOMAN MEMBER
C.C No.35/2011
Between
Complainant : Ajesh, S/o Joseph,
Parekudiyil House,
Kochukarimpan, Manippara P.O.,
Idukki District.
(By Adv: Biju Vasudevan)
And
Opposite Parties : 1. The Manager,
Apple Finance Company,
Kattappana P.O.,
Near Deshabhimani Office,
Idukki District.
(By Advs: P.A. Suhas
& John K. Chacko)
2. Rajeev, S/o Thankachan,
Kangazha House,
Pachadi P.O.,
Nedumkandam, Idukki District
O R D E R
SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)
The complainant purchased a Tata Indica car bearing registration No.KL-7-BH-6336 from one Mr. Hari, Kompanan House, Muvattupuzha, on 3.1.2009. At the time of purchasing the vehicle, the complainant availed a loan of Rs.1,75,000/- from the opposite party and the period of repayment was 3 years with a monthly instalment of Rs.7,100/- each. The complainant has repaid Rs.25,000/- to the opposite party, and the balance amount was became due. The complainant entrusted the vehicle to one Mr.Shiju, Kallurumbil, for plying the vehicle because the complainant was out of station for his work. No notice has been issued by the opposite party for the dues of the instalments. Several times the complainant insisted the opposite party to get the RC Book of the vehicle after transferring the name in the RC Book to the name of the complainant. That was not done by the opposite party. In the month of October, 2010, with the help of the Sub Inspector of Police, Idukki, the opposite party seized the vehicle forcibly from the said Shiju. The said vehicle is kept at Nirmal Autos, Nedumkandam and the suit is filed for getting a direction for restraining the sale of
(cont....2)
- 2 -
the vehicle from the opposite party. The complainant is always ready to pay the amount received as loan from the opposite party. Hence this petition is filed also for compensation and getting settlement of the account of the loan.
2. As per the written version filed by the opposite party, the suit is infractious because the vehicle has been sold out to one Mr. Rajeev, S/o Thankachan, Kangazha House, Pachadi, by the opposite party on 15.1.2011 and the said Rajeev is a necessary party to this litigation. The complainant availed a loan of Rs.1,75,000/- from the opposite party in the month of May, 2009 and the complainant never paid any amount to the opposite party after the same. The complainant never entrusted the vehicle to the said Shiju as per the complainant, but he had sold out it to Shiju, illegally without paying any amount in the loan account to the opposite party. So the opposite party filed a complaint before the Police Station, Idukki and the vehicle was surrendered by Shiju and the complainant before the Police and the vehicle was entrusted by the complainant to Shiju stating that the vehicle would be received back within one moth after remitting the entire dues. A notice was also issued to the complainant stating the surrender of the vehicle and the matter was also entered in the register of the Police Station. After that the complainant or Shiju never approached the opposite party for getting back the vehicle. One month time was also given to the complainant for clearing the dues, but the complainant never approached. So on 15.1.2011, the vehicle was sold to one Rajeev Thankachan for an amount of Rs.1,55,000/-. After that the opposite party is not at all liable for the vehicle. The opposite party paid an amount of Rs.15,000/- for the repair of the vehicle after the surrender of the vehicle. So the complainant is not at all entitled for any of the relief sought.
3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?
4. The evidence consists of oral testimony of PWs 1 and 2 and Exts. P1 to P2 marked on the side of the complainant and Ext.R1 marked on the side of the opposite parties.
5. The POINT :- The complainant produced evidence as PW1. PW1 availed an amount of Rs.1,75,000/- from the opposite party for his vehicle Tata Indica car bearing registration No. KL-7-BH-6336. At the time of availing the loan, the RC Book of the vehicle and the cheque leaves of the complainant, and also stamp paper signed by the complainant and loan agreement were received as security for the same. The loan period was 36 monthly instalments of Rs.7,100/- each. At the time of availing the loan, the opposite party agreed to issue the RC Book of the vehicle after
(cont....3)
- 3 -
changing the name of the vehicle and endorsing the finance in the RC Book. But it was not issued by the opposite party, eventhough the complainant paid Rs.25,000/- to the opposite party, including the fees for transferring the name. So there was a dispute between the complainant and the opposite party because the RC Book was not at all issued. So the complainant was not able to ply the vehicle and it was entrusted to one Mr.Shiju, Kallurumbil. The vehicle was also parking in the residence of the said Shiju because there was no convenience for parking the vehicle at the residence of the complainant. In the month of October, 2010, the opposite party seized the vehicle with the help of the Sub Inspector of Police, Idukki, named Mohanan Achari. No notice was issued by the opposite party to the complainant directly or through any legal authority. Now the vehicle is kept at one Nirmal Autos, Nedumkandam. Ext.P1 is the copy of the agreement for the purchase of the vehicle. Ext.P2 is the copy of the RC Book of the vehicle. While the PW1 was cross examined by the learned counsel for the opposite party, PW1 deposed that he never entrusted the vehicle to the said Shiju and what is stated in the affidavit that it is entrusted to Shiju, Kallurumbil is not correct. He also deposed that the Police took custody of the vehicle while Shiju was running the vehicle with his child to the hospital. Eventhough the said Shiju informed the matter that the Police has taken the vehicle under custody, the complainant never enquired for the same. It is also deposed that he never paid any amount to the opposite party. On re-examination of the counsel for the complainant, PW1 deposed that the key of the vehicle was given to the said Shiju and also permitted to drive the vehicle for necessary. PW2 is residing 1 Km away from the complainant's residence and PW2 deposed that the vehicle was parking at his residence by the complainant and he allowed PW2 to ply the vehicle for necessary purposes. The Police seized the vehicle from him and the opposite party had received it from the Police Station. The vehicle was not transferred in the name of Shiju.
A commissioner was appointed as per the application of the complainant to ascertain whether the vehicle is at Nirmal Autos, Nedumkandam. But as per Ext.C1, Commission Report, it is stated that at the time of inspection of the commissioner at “Nirmal Autos”, “Used Vehicle dealer”, Main Road, Padinjarekavala, Nedumkandam, the disputed vehicle bearing Reg. No.KL-7-BH-6336 Tata Indica car is parking at there. The opposite party was also present at the time of inspection of the commissioner. So the contention of the opposite party that the suit is infractious because the vehicle is already sold out to another person is not at all sustainable. As per the complainant, he availed a loan of Rs.1,75,000/- from the opposite party, but he repaid an amount of Rs.25,000/-. But the opposite party never issued the RC Book of the vehicle to the complainant after changing the ownership of the vehicle. So there is a dispute regarding the same, while the vehicle was parked at his neighbour's residence, the vehicle was seized by the opposite party with the help of
(cont....4)
- 4 -
the Police and the complainant is ready to pay the entire loan amount, the vehicle is kept at “Used Vehicle dealer” at Nedumkandam. As per the opposite party, eventhough the complainant received Rs.1,75,000/-, no amount was repaid, but he sold out the vehicle to one Shiju, illegally. So the 1st opposite party filed a petition before the Police and the vehicle was seized by the Police and the complainant surrendered the vehicle to the opposite party telling that the entire amount will be paid within one month. But it was not done and so the vehicle was sold out to another person Mr. Rajeev Thankachan for an amount of Rs.1,55,000/-.
It is very clear from the Ext.C1 Commission Report that the vehicle is kept at the “Used Vehicle dealer” in the name and style, “Nirmal Autos”, by the opposite party and it is also admitted by the opposite party that the vehicle was seized with the help of the Police. So the contention of the opposite party that the suit is infractious because the vehicle is already sold out to another person is not at all sustainable. So the opposite party forcefully seized the vehicle with the help of Police and kept at used vehicle dealer, “Nirmal Autos”. But the learned counsel for the opposite party argued that the vehicle has been already sold out to one Mr.Rajeev, S/o Thankachan, Kangazha House, Pachadi and the sale letter also produced before the Forum. But in the sale letter, there is no mention of the register number of the vehicle, engine number of the vehicle, chassis number of the vehicle, it is also written that the registered owner is one Mr.Aji. As per the petition of the complainant, the said Rajeev has been impleaded as a 2nd opposite party to the litigation, eventhough notices has been issued to the said Rajeev, he never appeared before the Forum. It means that the version of the opposite party is not at all believable. The sale agreement produced by the opposite party is not at all reliable. If the opposite party issued a vehicle loan to the complainant, then the name of the registered owner of the vehicle also ought to have changed in the name of the loanee, but in the agreement, it is written that the registered owner is one Mr.Aji. Without transferring the registered ownership in the name of the loanee and without endorsing the loan details in the RC Book, how the opposite party sanctioned Rs.1,75,000/- to the complainant. That is also not believable. Here as per the agreement produced by the opposite party, the name of the registered owner is Aji and nothing has been written about the detail of the vehicle. If any loan has been due to the opposite party, the opposite party ought to have issued registered notice to the complainant for intimating the due of the loan. That was not done. No statement of account has been produced by the opposite party before this Forum. But the opposite party forcefully seized the vehicle with the help of the Police and the opposite party admitted that the vehicle was seized by the Police. If the vehicle was surrendered by the complainant, copy of the surrender letter is also not produced by the opposite party. But the complainant never produced any evidence to show that he paid any amount to the loan account to the opposite party, no loan pass book, not even a single
(cont....5)
- 5 -
receipt has been produced. Eventhough the loan was received in the month of May, 2009, nothing has been repaid by the complainant and it is also admitted by PW1 in his deposition. It is also admitted by the complainant that he entrusted the vehicle to one Mr.Shiju and from that Shiju, the Police has seized the vehicle. PW1 also deposed that while the vehicle was seized by the Police from the said Shiju, he never approached the Police for the vehicle.
So we think that there is nothing to disbelieve the version of the opposite party that the complainant had sold out the vehicle to the said Shiju. The complainant can claim the vehicle only after paying the entire loan amount to the opposite party. Here it is not done by the complainant. Not even a single amount has been repaid by the complainant. If the complainant never pays any amount to the opposite party, the opposite party has a right to re-sale the vehicle and recover the loan amount. If the Police had helped the opposite party to seize the vehicle forcefully from the custody of the complainant, the complainant ought to have filed a complaint against the same, eventhough the said Shiju, who was in the possession of the vehicle never filed any complaint before any authority, against the same. If the Sub Inspector of Police helped the opposite party to seize the vehicle, what prevented the complainant to file complaint to the Superior Officers of Police against the act of the Sub Inspector of Police. If the Police has registered a complaint at the Police Station, or written in the register about the complaint of the opposite party, the complainant never produced any evidence to show the same before the Forum. Hence the complainant failed to prove any deficiency against the opposite parties.
Hence the petition dismissed. No cost is ordered against the complainant.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 26th day of September, 2011
Sd/-
SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)
Sd/-
SMT. BINDHU SOMAN (MEMBER)
(cont.....6)
- 6 -
APPENDIX
Depositions :-
On the side of the Complainant : -
PW1 - Ajesh Joseph
PW2 - Shijumon K.D.
On the side of the Opposite Parties :-
Nil.
Exhibits :-
On the side of the Complainant : -
Ext.P1 - Copy of the agreement for the purchase of the vehicle.
Ext.P2 - Copy of the RC Book of the vehicle.
Ext.C1 - Commission Report dated 10.3.2011.
On the side of the Opposite Parties :-
Nil.
