BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PONDICHERRY

                                          C.C.No.11/2014

Dated this the 4^th day of May 2016

(Date of Institution:27.01.2014)

S.J. Gowri, wife of Sendhanathan Gandhi

No.2, Plot No.17

Engineers Avenue, 2^nd Street

S. Kolathur, Chennai – 600 117.

                                       ….     Complainant

vs

1. The Manager    

     ICICI Bank,  

     Near Indira Gandhi Statue

     Ellapillai Chavadi, Pondicherry – 5

2. The Administrator

     Ashok Jewellary

    (Ashok Bankers)

    No.188, Cuddalore Salai

    Mudaliarpet, Puducherry – 4.

                    ….     Opposite Parties

BEFORE:

          THIRU.A.ASOKAN, B.A., B.L.,

          PRESIDENT 

Tmt. PVR. DHANALAKSHMI, B.A., B.L.,

MEMBER

Thiru V.V. STEEPHEN, B.A., LL.B.,

MEMBER

FOR THE COMPLAINANT      :  Thiru Senthanathan, Party-in-person

                                                          (husband of complainant)

FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES: Tvl. L. Swaminathan and I. Ilankumar,

                                                          Advocates for OP1

                                                          Thiru S. Vimal, Advocate for OP2.

O R  D  E  R

(by Thiru V.V. Steephen, Member)

This is a complaint filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986  to direct the first opposite party to give him a sum of Rs.3.00 lakhs towards the cost of the car;  a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the cost of this litigation.  To direct the second Opposite party to give a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony. 

          2. The case of the complainant is as follows:

          The complainant purchased an Indigo GLX Petrol Car bearing  Regn. No. PY 01 Z 5556 on 29.10.204 by getting a loan from first opposite party ICICI Bank and the same was registered in the name of first opposite party with the Regional Transport Office, Puducherry.   The complainant discharged the entire loan till 3.10.2009, however the first opposite party did not issue him No Objection Certificate inspite of repeated demands made by her.  After discharge of the loan with the first opposite party, the complainant got a loan of Rs.60,000/- on 29.06.2010 from the second opposite party for his family expenses, by pledging the car, its key, insurance, RC Book, unfilled TO Form.  However, they have not issued the Receipt for such pledging.  From October 2010 the complainant is residing at Chennai with her children.  Since the complainant is residing at Chennail, she could not pay the interest to the second Opposite Party for which, the second opposite party demanded No Objection Certificate from the ICICI Bank, which she did not give.  Hence, the second opposite party utilized the unfilled signed Form 35 by filling the name as Santhakumar and gave it to the first opposite Party Bank who also without making proper enquiry, signed on that Form and transferred the same to the name of said Santhakumar.   The complainant further stated that as soon as the loan was discharged with the bank, it has to be signed in the computer printed Form 35 and then issued the NOC, thereafter, the owner of the vehicle will sign the NOC and give it to RTO Office and cancel the bank loan.  Instead of that, the second opposite party, used the signed unfilled Form 35 by filling the same with ink and obtained the signature and seal of the first opposite party below the signature of complainant and transferred the ownership of the car bearing Regn. No. PY 01 Z 5556 to one Santhakumar.  The complainant stated that since the first opposite party has not issued the No Objection Certificate, she issued a legal notice to the first opposite party on 06.04.2012 for which no reply was given by them.   Hence, the  opposite parties have committed deficiency in service, mental agony etc. to the complainant.  Hence, this complaint.

          3. The reply version filed by the first opposite party briefly discloses the following:

The Complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  The Complainant approached this Hon’ble Consumer Forum with unclean hands.  There is no cause of action as against the first Opposite Party which is evident and clear through the information provided under the Right to Information Act, 2005 by the Transport Commissioner, Government of Puducherry vide his Order dated 9-03-2012 in F.A No. 27/2012 which is self-explanatory and the Complainant only to achieve unlawful gains has approached this Hon’ble District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Puducherry by dragging the First Opposite Party bank for selfish reasons with lot of contradiction of averments in the complaint.    If a hire purchase or hypothecated vehicle standing in the name of any financial Institutions has to be terminated, the Borrower being the registered owner of the vehicle must submit Form- 35 to the Registration Department, Regional Transport Office duly signed by them for termination of the Agreement pertaining to hire purchase of hypothecation of the vehicle and the Complainant is not an exception to it.  In the instant Case based on the submission of Form-35 dated 14-11-2011 duly signed by the Complainant to the First Opposite Party bank, the Authorized Signatory of the First Opposite Party bank through their Letter dated 14-11-2011 addressed to the Regional Transport Office had issued No Objection Certificate by informing as follows:

        “…… The Vehicle Loan Agreement with our Customer Mrs. Gowri. S. J. to whom we have financed a Tata Motor Limited –Indigo-PY 01 Z 5556 is terminated and we request you to remove our hypothecation from the Registration Certificate of the above Vehicle….”

While this being the factual situation, making allegations against the First Opposite Party Bank that bank did not come forward to issue NOC pursuant to closure of dues on 3-10-2009 is highly whimsical and cannot be entertained even to a slightest extent.  To vouch safe the credentials of the First Opposite Party bank, the Transport Commissioner, Transport Department, Puducherry being the First Appellate Authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005 through his Order dated 9-03-2012 in F. A No. 27/2012 had stated in Para No. 3&4 as follows:

     “…. It is observed that the PIO had furnished his Reply by registered post to the applicant vide letter No. 729/TD/R2/RTI/2012 dated 20.02.2012 mentioning that the Services involving cancellation of existing hypothecation as well as transfer of Ownership in respect of vehicle bearing Registration No.PY 01 Z 5556 was duly considered upon perusal of the requisite Documents….

……As per the Office data, it is observed that the services involving cancellation of the existing hypothecation with the ICIC bank Limited, Cenatoph Road, Teynampet, Chennai-600 018 was effected on 14.11.2011 and the transfer of Ownership from the name of transferor (Gowri,wife of Sendhanathan Gandhi, No. 21, Thirumal Nagar, Kosaplayam, No.4,6^th Cross Street, Sathiya Nagar, Saram, Puducherry) was effected from 16.11.2011 by the Assistant Registering Authority, Puducherry upon submission of required Statutory Forms by the registered Owner of the said vehicle along with the requisite documents. Hence the reply of PIO is in order….”

Thus it is crystal clear that No Objection Certificate dated 14.11.2011 was issued by the Bank only after Form-35 duly signed by the complainant was submitted to the First opposite Party bank and First opposite Party bank has neither any say nor in anyway responsible for transfer of Ownership of the vehicle bearing registration No. PY 01 Z 5556 from S. J. Gowri, Wife of Sendhanathan Gandhi to Santhakumar, son of Varadarajan and the entire complaint is based on illusions of the Complainant.  The First opposite Party bank is not responsible for handing over of the vehicle of the Complainant to the Second Opposite party for obtaining Loan and the averments of the Complainant in Para No. 5 itself would clearly establish the fact that the First opposite Party bank is not connected with the transactions of the Complainant with the second Opposite Party. While this being the factual situation, the entire Complaint as against the First opposite Party bank is not maintainable as the First Opposite Party bank cannot be held responsible for the commissions and omissions of the complainant. No Objection Certificate was issued by the First opposite Party bank only based on Form-35 duly signed by the complainant and the Complainant herein only for the purpose of undue enrichment had approached this Hon’ble District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Puducherry with a clear fantasy tale by suppression of the above said information.

The First opposite Party bank had issued No Objection Certificate dated 14.11.2011 only pursuant to the submission of FORM-35 dated 14.11.2011 duly signed by the registered Owner namely the Complainant herein and the present Complaint is only an afterthought for compensating the loss sustained from the hands of the second Opposite Party.   The information provided by the Regional Transport Office, Transport Department, and Puducherry also makes it clear that the Complainant vehicle was transferred in the name of Santhakumar, Son of Varadarajan only after submission of required Statutory form by the registered Owner of the said vehicle along with the requisite documents.  Therefore the entire complaint is misconceived, illogical, contrary to factual circumstances and liable to be dismissed in limine with cost as against the First opposite Party bank. The complainant even before obtaining No Objection Certificate through cancellation of hypothecation by the First opposite Party bank had chosen to approach the Second Opposite Party by obtaining Loan which is forbidden by law and the Complainant is criminally liable for such an act. The complainant is claiming compensation as against the First opposite Party bank without any cause of action and without understanding the Banking procedures clearly shows to say that the Complainant is acting too smart in leveling allegations as against the First opposite Party bank to achieve unlawful gains. The First opposite Party bank is not running any charitable organization to make the Complainant earn at its cost.  Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4. The reply version filed by the second opposite party briefly discloses the following:

The complaint is not maintainable either on facts or in law.  The complaint is barred by limitation. The complaint is filed belatedly from the date of cause of action for alleged deficiency in service i.e. on 29.06.2010 against this 2^nd opposite Party.    Apart from denying the allegations made in complaint paras 3, 4,8 and 9 and stated that it is solely within the personal knowledge of the complainant and the first opposite Party.    This opposite party submitted that it is running a business in the name of Ashok Jewelers for long years and has developed goodwill and reputation among its customer, for its reliable conduct with its customers.   The complainant’s husband being one of the erstwhile customers of this Opposite Party prior to the alleged transaction approached him seeking to sell his wife’s old car for a valuable consideration.  Since, this opposite Party had some acquaintance with some person who was willing to buy old cars;  he referred the complainant’s husband to them.   Among such buyer the complainant’s husband had approached them and dealt with them in person without the knowledge of this Opposite Party and this Opposite Party came to know of the sale of her car to one Mr. Santhakumar through the complainant’s husband himself.  Thus this Opposite Party has no knowledge of the transaction that transpired between the complainant and the buyer and is not privy to the same. This 2^nd Opposite Party has not rendered any service, service for consideration to the complainant as defined under section 2 (1) (d)  (ii) and section 2 (1) (o) of the consumer Protection Act to the Complainant in any manner whatsoever.   The complaint lacks cause of action to sue this 2^nd Opposite Party. Further the Complainant cannot claim herself in any manner to be a consumer of service with the 2^nd Opposite Party as defined under section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.   The complaint is apparently barred against this 2^nd Opposite Party by Limitation under  section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, since the complainant has been filed after above 3 years and 5 months from the date of alleged cause of action on 29.10.2011.  Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

5. The complainant's husband Thiru M. Senthanathan Gandhi was examined on behalf of the complainant Tmt. S.J. Gowri as CW1 through an Authorisation Letter dated 05.11.2013 and Exs. C1 to C13 were marked through him and the opposite parties have not chosen to examine them to let in evidence and no documents were produced on behalf of them. 

6.       Points for determination are :

          1. Whether the complainant is a consumer?

2. Whether, the opposite parties has attributed to any act of deficiency of service?

3. Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?

            7. Point No.1:

           The complainant herein availed a car loan from the first Opposite Party and repaid the loan which reflected in the statement of accounts of the complainant (Ex.C3) issued by first opposite party  and in view of the transactions held between the complainant and the first opposite party, the complainant is held to be a consumer as against the first opposite party as per sec.2 (1)(o) of Consumer Protection Act.   It is submitted by the complainant that a personal loan was availed from the second opposite party  in the year 2010 by pledging the car along with RC book of the car, but no documents were filed to prove the alleged transaction between the complainant and second opposite party.  Since the complainant failed to establish the nature of the transaction or relationship between the complainant and the second opposite party, the complainant cannot be held to be a consumer  as against the second  opposite party and as such, the complaint is not maintainable as against the second opposite party.  This point is answered accordingly.

           8. Point No.2:

           It is submitted by the complainant that the complainant availed a car loan from the opposite party in the year 2004 and purchased an Indigo card GLX Model vide registration No. PY 01 Z 5566 and the loan was duly repaid by the year 2009 as per the statement of accounts (Ex.C3) issued by the first opposite party and further submitted that subsequently in the year 2010 the complainant obtained a loan from the second opposite party by pledging the car with RC Book and by submitting unfilled "Transfer of Ownership" (Form No.35)  form signed by the complainant to the second opposite party.  It is further submitted by the complainant that since there was default in the repayment of the loan to the second opposite party from the year October 2010, the second opposite party in connivance of the first OP obtained a "No Objection Certificate" from the first opposite party and effected the transfer of ownership of the car without the knowledge of the complainant to the name of a third party by name Santhakumar before the Transport Department, Pondicherry.  Hence, the complaint was filed as against the Opposite parties for deficiency of service and for mental agony. 

           9. The first opposite party submitted that it is the complainant who obtained the signature in the Transfer of Ownership Form from the first opposite party and No Objection Certificate (Ex.C2) addressed to Regional Transport Office, for effecting the transfer of vehicle and the second opposite party further submitted that the second  opposite party just referred the complainant to contact Santhakumar for selling the car and further submitted that the second opposite party has no further knowledge of transaction that transpired between the complainant and buyer and thereby the opposite parties denied the allegations of the complainant. 

           10. Both sides were heard and records were carefully perused by this Forum and observes as follows:

           It is held by the Forum as already discussed in Point No.1 that the complainant is not a consumer as against the second Opposite party, the allegation raised by the complainant against the second opposite party cannot be adjudicated before this Forum, but for proper adjudication of the case in whole, this Forum is inclined to discuss the evidence adduced against both the opposite parties.  The submission of the complainant is that the complainant has availed loan from the second opposite party by pledging the car is not supported by any documentary evidence and also failed to establish the transaction between the complainant and the second  opposite party to sustain the allegation raised by the complainant as against the second  opposite party.   It is further submitted by the complainant relying on document Ex.C10 that the second  opposite party has transferred the vehicle to one santhakumar without the knowledge of the complainant  but, even though the information received through Right to Information (Ex.C10) reveals that the second opposite party has transferred the car PY 01 5566 to one Santhakumar, the document (Ex.C10) lacks legal sanctity as it contains only information and not admission made or signed by second opposite party and further the document Ex.C10 itself reveal that the concerned Officer has not obtained anything in writing during enquiry and the enquiry was not conducted properly.  Hence, the allegation raised by the complainant against the second opposite party is not supported by any documentary or oral evidence.      

           11. With regard to the OP1  - it is submitted by the complainant that No Objection certificate issued by the first opposite party through Ex.C2 was not received by the complainant and that the same was issued only to second opposite party without the knowledge of the complainant.  On perusal of the document and the evidence, it is pertinent to note that the complainant has not disputed the signature in the transfer of ownership form enclosed in Ex.C2 and also admits in the evidence that the transfer of ownership of the car bearing Regn. No. PY 01 Z 5566 to the name of one Santhakumar was effected properly after execution of relevant documents to the Registering Authority of Transport, Pondicherry.  Hence, the allegation of the complainant that the first opposite party has issued NOC to OP2 facilitating the transfer of the vehicle to a third party by name Santhakumar without the knowledge of the complainant cannot be taken into consideration.  It is observed by the Forum that unless the complainant establishes the transaction between the second opposite party and the complainant the allegation of issuance of No Objection Certificate  (Ex.C2) by first opposite party to the second opposite party and the relevancy of issuance of No Objection Certificate and Transfer of Ownership Form (Ex.C4) by first opposite party to the complainant and  will not come into play and the complainant herein failed to establish or prove the transaction between the complainant and the second opposite party and hence, the allegations of issuance of No Objection Certificate by the first opposite party to the second opposite party leading to deficiency of service by first opposite party  as against the complainant will not arise.  This point is held in favour of the first opposite party. 

           12. It is further held by the Forum that since point No.1 is arrived in favour of the second opposite party, disentitling the complainant as a consumer as against the second opposite party, discussion in Point No.2 also held in favour of the second opposite party holding of the view that the complaint is not maintainable as against the second opposite party before this Forum.  This point is answered accordingly.

           13. Point No.3:

In view of the discussions made in para supra, it is held by the Forum that the complainant has failed to establish the maintainability of the complaint as against the opposite parties and to prove that the opposite parties have committed deficiency of service.

14. In the result, the complaint is hereby dismissed. No costs.

Dated this the 4^th day of May 2016.

1. ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(PVR. DHANALAKSHMI)

    MEMBER

(V.V. STEEPHEN)

    MEMBER

COMPLAINANTS' WITNESS:

CW1           03.09.2014           Senthanathan Gandhi

OPPOSITE PARTIES WITNESS:  NIL

COMPLAINANTS' EXHIBITS:

OPPOSITE PARTY'S EXHIBITS:   NIL

LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS:      NIL

1. ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(PVR. DHANALAKSHMI)

    MEMBER

(V.V. STEEPHEN)

    MEMBER