Karnataka

Kolar

CC/53/2016

Sri.K.Arunodaya - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager,Prerana Motors(P) Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.Suman.K

23 May 2017

ORDER

Date of Filing: 27/08/2016

Date of Order: 23/05/2017

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.

 

Dated: 23^rd DAY OF MAY  2017

PRESENT

SMT. PRATHIBHA.R.K., BAL LLM, PRESIDENT

SMT. A.C. LALITHA, BAL., LLB           ……  LADY MEMBER

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO :: 53 OF 2016

Smt. K. Arunodaya,

W/o. Shivashankar,

Aged About 35 Years,

R/at: No.389/1, Tyagaraj Colony,

Behind Agriculture Office,

Mulbagal Taluk, Kolar District.

(Rep. by Sriyuth. Suman.K & Somashekhar.R, Advocates)        ….  Complainant.

 

- V/s -

(1) The Manager,

Prerana Motors (P) Ltd.,

Authorised Dealer for Range of

TATA Vehicles-Sales, Service & Spares,

‘Veeni Court’ 132/15,

Lalbagh Road, Bangalore-560 027.

(Rep. by Sri.B. Kumar, Advocate)

 

(2) The Manager, Recovery,

Indus Ind Bank, Consumer Finance Division,

Panchavathi Hotel Building, Boys College Circle,

Kote, Kolar.

(Rep. by Sriyuth.V.K. Prashanth, Advocate)

 

(3) The Regional Manager,

Indus Ind Bank, State Office,

Indus Ind Bank, No.87, 2^nd Floor,

Bull Temple Road, Basavanagudi,

Bangalore-560 019.

(Rep. by Sriyuth.V.K. Prashanth, Advocate)             …. Opposite Parties.

-: ORDER:-

 

BY SMT. PRATHIBHA.R.K, PRESIDENT

01.   The complainant has preferred this complaint as envisaged Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the OPs seeking directions against the OP Nos. 1 to 3 to return the Tata Ace four wheeler vehicle bearing registration No.KA-07-A-1417 in good condition or to handover good conditioned same vehicle to the complainant, to direct the OP No.2 to refund Rs.50,480/- towards the extra amount collected from the complainant, to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss of health, time, money, and peace of mind to the complainant.

 

02.   The facts in brief:-

(a)    It is contention of the complainant that, on 29.03.2013 complainant purchased Tata Ace four wheeler vehicle bearing registration No.KA-07A-1417 from OP No.1.  The above said vehicle OP No.3 is sanctioned loan under EMI basis.   The OP No.2 is the team who collects the monthly EMIs from the complainant.  As per the invoice Rs.3,24,813/-, at the time of purchase OP No.1 has received down payment of Rs.1,00,000/- from the complainant, but OP No.2 has given receipt for Rs.49,520 and for the remaining amount OP No.2 has not given any receipt.  Hence there is due of Rs.50,480/- to the complainant from the OPs.  The EMI has been fixed by the OP No.2 for Rs.10,170/- in 30 equitable monthly installments. The complainant submitted that, he has paid Rs.3,00,403/- to the OP Nos.2 and now complainant is due only Rs.4,697/- as per the OP No.2 EMI schedule.  The complainant is always ready to pay the balance loan amount, but without intimation/notice by ill-motive and to grab unlawfully, OP No.2 seized the said vehicle. 

 

(b)    Further submission of the complainant is that, complainant is a lady, law abiding citizen and purely depending upon the income of her vehicle.  After seizure of the vehicle complainant approached OP-2 and requested to hand-over the said vehicle by receiving balance amount of Rs.4,697/-, but OP No.2 has postponed the matter to hand-over the vehicle.  In this regard complainant filed a complaint before the concerned police, but the investigation authority had colluded with the Opponents and has given endorsement instead of doing investigation.  Constrained by the acts of the Ops complainant issued legal notice dated: 26.07.2016 to Ops, but Ops neither cared to reply nor complied.  Hence this complaint.

 

(c)    Along with the complaint the complainant has filed following copies of documents:-

(i) Copy of the cash paid receipt dated: 18.04.2012.

(ii) Copy of EMI Chart with detailed installments paid reeipt.

(iii) Copy of R.C.

(iv) Copy of the endorsement issued by concerned policy.

(v) office copy of legal notice

(vi) postal receipt with acknowledgement.

 

 

03.   In response to the notice issued from this Forum, counsel for OP No.1 appeared and filed its version by resisting the claim of the complainant in toto.

 

(a)    The contention of the OP No.1 is that, the complainant has approached OP No.1 and requested to give invoice for Tata Ace vehicle and accordingly, OP No.1 given invoice for a sum of Rs.3,24,813/- in favour of the complainant.  The complainant has taken financial assistance towards purchase of the said vehicle from OP Nos.2 & 3 respectively.  The OP No.1 has delivered Tata Ace vehicle to the complainant under invoice for a sum of Rs.3,24,813/- and OP No.1 has received Rs.49,520/- on 18.04.2012 and accordingly issued receipt on 18.04.2012. 

(b)    Further OP No.1 has contended that, the complaint is very vague and as bad as it is, and the same is not in accordance with the provision of C.P. Act.  As such complaint is liable to be dismissed.  The OP No.1 is only formal party to this proceedings and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1.  The real controversy is between the complainant and the OP Nos.2 & 3 and the OP No.1 is an unnecessary party to the proceedings.  There is no cause of action for the present complaint.  Hence OP No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

04.   In response to the notices issued from this Forum, counsel for both OP Nos.2 & 3 appeared and filed common version by resisting the claim of the complainant in toto.

 

(a)    OP Nos.2 & 3 have submitted that, complainant herself has approached the OP Nos.2 & 3 in the month of April-2014 and requested for financial assistance towards purchase of Tata Ace and on considering the said request OP Nos.2 & 3 have agreed to give loan as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement executed in between them.

 

(b)    OP Nos.2 & 3 contends that, the complainant had purchased one Tata Ace four wheeler vehicle bearing registration No. KA-07 - A 1417 on 29.03.2013 from the OP No.1 and the OP Nos.2 & 3 are the financers for sanctioning the loan on monthly EMI basis.  The invoice amount is Rs.3,24,813/- and the margin money paid by the complainant is Rs.48,813/-.  The OP Nos.2 & 3 financed Rs.2,76,000/- and the insurance for the first year premium is Rs.51,000/-, and the interest charges for the agreed contract period of 48 months is Rs.1,13,712/-, that is, the total agreement value is Rs.4,40,712/-.  The EMI installment is fixed for Rs.10,170/- from 01 to 30 installments and Rs.8,470/- was fixed for 31^st to 46^th installments which is clearly stated in the loan account statement.  The money lend by OP Nos.2 & 3 to the complainant is that of public money and complainant cannot give any lame excuse from his liability in repaying the due amounts. 

 

(c)    Further OP Nos.2 & 3 contended that, the complainant is a chronic defaulter and on 29.03.2013 the OP Nos.2 & 3 have repossessed the said vehicle and on the request and promise made by the complainant to pay the installments regularly these Ops have returned the repossessed vehicle to the complainant on 26.04.2013.  Again the same thing continued and hence OP Nos.2 & 3 issued various intimation letter on 03.06.2014 calling upon the complainant and the guarantor to pay the overdue amount and in default Ops shall repossessed and shall sold in auction in accordance with law, but complainant with an intention to cheat Ops has appeared before this Hon’ble Forum.  When there was no reply from the complainant’s side, again on 22.07.2014 the OPs repossessed the vehicle on second time through Sree Balaji Auto Care and by intimating the police on 23.07.2014.  Even after repossession Ops issued presale notice to the complainant and the guarantor on 08.12.2014 through RPAD, but the complainant did not cared to give any reply.  Hence on 02.02.2015 these Ops again issued final presale notice to the complainant and the guarantor and as there was no reply from the side of complainant after obtaining certificate of valuation of motor vehicle dated: 16.02.2015 from the approved valuer auctioned for a tune of Rs.2,02,000/- and closed the loan account of the complainant.  The complainant is still due Rs.5,34,895.11 towards accumulated due with regard to the non-remittance of loan installments in time as per the agreed terms and conditions of the loan agreement i.e., on or before 21^st of respective months. 

 

(d)    The OP Nos.2 & 3 further contended that, on receipt of the legal notice dated: 26.07.2016 from the complainant the representative of the Ops contacted the complainant and suggested for payment of entire overdue amount together with delay, default and repossession charges along with yard parking charges.  Instead of making payments the complainant approached this Hon’ble Forum with false allegations.  The complainant has not submitted detailed bank statement of account and cash paid receipt to prove that, all the loan installments were borne by her to these OP Nos.2 & 3.  There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of these OP Nos.2 & 3 and the complainant has not submitted any supporting documents against the loan in order to prove that, she has paid the entire outstanding amount towards said loan account.  So contending these OP Nos.2 & 3 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

(e)    Along with the version the OP Nos.2 & 3 have submitted following copies of documents:-

(i) Copy of the Statement of account dated: 18.10.20176

(ii) Copy of Notice dated: 03.06.2014 issued to the complainant and its acknowledgment.

(iii) Copy of seizure report and Panchanama issued by Sree Balaji Auto Care.

(iv) Copy of intimation letter dated: 23.07.2014 issued by the Ops to Police Inspector, Mulbagal and its acknowledgement.

(v) Copy of the notice dated: 22.07.2014 issued by the Ops to complainant.

(vi) Copy of the Pre-sale notice dated: 08.12.2014 issued by the Ops to complainant.

(vii) Copy of the Final Pre-sale Notice dated: 02.02.2015 issued by the OP Nos.2 & 3 to complainant.

(viii) Copy of the Certificate of Valuation of Motor vehicle dated: 16.02.2015 issued by S.N.Venugopal, Surveyor and Govt. App. Valuer, with photographs.

(ix) Copy of the letter dated: 28.05.2015 issued by the OP Nos.2 & 3 to Post Office.

(x) Copies of complaint-acknowledgment issued by Department of Posts, Kolar, to OP Nos.2 & 3.

 

05.   On 08.12.2016 counsel for complainant has filed affidavit evidence by way of examination-in-chief.  On 29.12.2016 counsel for OP Nos.2 & 3 has submitted affidavit evidence of one Sri. Lakshmikantha.R, the legal manager of OP Nos.2 & 3.  On 07.01.2017 counsel appearing for OP No.1 has filed affidavit evidence of one Sri.A.R. Gopal, Assistant General Manger of OP No.1. 

 

06.   On 03.04.2017 counsel appearing for OP Nos.2 & 3 has submitted written arguments and on 11.04.2017 counsel appearing for complainant has filed complainant’s written arguments.  Heard arguments on both sides.

 

07.   Therefore the points that do arise for our consideration in this case are:-

 (A) Whether the complainant has proved  

     deficiency in service on the part of the 

      OPs?

 (B) Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for in the complaint?

(C)   What order?

 

08.   Findings of this District Forum on the above stated points are:-

POINT (A) & (B):- In the Negative

POINT (C):-  As per the final order

for the following:-

 

REASONS

POINTS (A) & (B):-

09.   On perusal of the pleadings along with documents, affidavit evidence and written arguments produced by both parties, it is an admitted fact that, on 29.03.2013 complainant purchased one Tata Ace four wheeler vehicle bearing registration No. KA-07-A1417 from the OP No.1.  The OP Nos.2 & 3 have sanctioned loan for the above said vehicle. 

 

10.   The main allegation of the complainant is that, in spite of complainant making payments towards EMIs regularly that to the tune of Rs.3,00,403/- for the balance amount of Rs.4,697/- the OP Nos.2 & 3 have unlawfully seized the vehicle that to without giving any intimation/notice which resulted to loss of earnings and status. 

 

11.   On perusal of the documents pertaining to the EMI receipts submitted by the complainant there is only 04 receipts which are pertaining to the complainant i.e., receipts dated: 30.11.2012, 30.12.2013, 28.02.2014 and 25.10.2012. Another receipt produced by the complainant dated: 19.10.2015 belongs to one Sri.Prasad.S, bearing some other Code number.  Hence this receipt dated: 19.10.2015 cannot be considered as loan paid receipt towards complainant’s vehicle.  Therefore on totaling the EMIs paid by the complainant as per the 04 receipts produced by the complainant it comes to Rs.36,500/-.  When complainant has taken a stand that, she has paid regularly all the EMIs without fail and only Rs.4,697/- was left towards balance outstanding amount, why she did not produce all the receipts pertaining to EMI payments which she has paid.  The complainant must be vigilant and diligent while filing her pleadings and it is the bounden duty of the complainant to prove her case she might have produced all the receipts pertaining to EMI payments.  Without producing cogent evidence this forum cannot come to the conclusion that, complainant is regular in making payment of all the EMIs towards loan account.

 

12.   Secondly in the complaint the complainant has taken a stand that, without issuing any notice or intimation the OP-2 had seized the vehicle in question.  Per contra, OP-2 in their version has stated that, before seizure they issued intimation letter dated: 03.06.2014 calling upon the complainant to pay the overdue amount and in default, OP Nos.2 & 3 shall repossess the vehicle without further notice, but complainant did not give any reply.  Hence on 22.07.2014 the OP Nos.2 & 3 have repossessed the vehicle through Sree Balaji Auto Care by intimating the police on 23.07.2014.  Even after repossession also OP Nos.2 & 3 have issued Presale Notice dated: 08.12.2014 to the complainant, but the complainant did not care to give any reply.  Hence on 02.02.2015 OP Nos.2 & 3 have issued Final Presale Notice to the complainant and as there was no reply from the complainant’s side after obtaining certificate of valuation of motor vehicle dated: 16.02.2015 from the approved valuer Ops have auctioned the said vehicle for a sum of Rs.2,02,000/- and closed the loan account of the complainant.  To substantiate this contention OP Nos.2 & 3 have produced copies of the intimation letter, presale notice and final presale notice along with postal acknowledgment letters.  On perusal of the letter dated: 03.06.2014, 22.07.2014, 08.12.2014 and 02.02.2015 it is clear that, OP Nos.2 & 3 have informed the complainant.  Before seizure of the vehicle and after seizure of the said vehicle, OP Nos.2 & 3 have issued presale notice and final presale notice to the complainant.  When there is no reply from the complainant’s side OP Nos. 2 & 3 have auctioned the said vehicle and have closed the loan account by adjusting the amount to the outstanding loan account.  Hence we came to the conclusion that, OP Nos.2 & 3 have exercised their duty in accordance with law.  Hence we hold that, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP Nos.2 & 3.  The OP No.1 being a dealer is in no way concern to this instant case as there are no allegations against him. 

 

POINT (C):

13.   We proceed to pass the following:-

 

23.05.2017:-

COMPLAINANT/BY SRI.

OPPOSITE PARTY/IES BY SRI.

ORDER

01.   The complaint filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed.  No orders as to costs.

 

02.   Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost

 

(Dictated to the Stenographer in the Open Forum, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 23^rd DAY OF MAY 2017)

 

 

 

 

LADY MEMBER                                    PRESIDENT