D.O.F:17/10/2014
D.O.O:18/04/2022
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.No.224/2014
Dated this, the 18th day of April 2022
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M: MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Deepu Daniel
S/o. Daniel.K.V
R/at Kakkadanchal, Matool North. P.O :Complainant
(Adv: P.Y Ajay Kumar)
And
- The Managing Director,
Zain Motors, Zain Arcade,
Near Chandragiri Bridge, Kasaragod
(Adv: M. Ashalatha)
- Muthoot Capital Services Ltd. Kochi : Opposite Parties
Represented by its Branch Manager,
Cheruvathur Branch, P.O Cheruvathur
ORDER
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
The Complaint filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.
Brief facts set out in the complaint are that the complainant purchased a Bajaj bike from its dealer Opposite Party No: 1during 1st week of February 2014. Total price agreed was Rs. 95,765/- including a promised loan from Muthoot capital service Ltd. Thus he remitted Rs. 27,500/- towards price of vehicle. All the documents requested by Opposite Party No: 2 are submitted loan agreement for Rs. 74,000/- is signed. Loan is transformed to Opposite Party No: 1 by money transfer. Vehicle is delivered to complainant in February 2014. Thereafter the complainant was called by Pazhayagadi Police in connection with a complaint, removed the vehicle to Chandera Police Station. Vehicle is not registered.
Complainant could not ply the vehicle for ten months. He suffered mental tension Opposite Party No: 1 is bound to arrange temporary permit for vehicle. Complainant is seeking payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for mental tension and agony.
2. The Opposite Party No: 1 filed its version denying the allegations. Their case is that their then office manager was one Geetha. But she started doing business without consent of Opposite Party No:1 amount was received but not credited to account of Opposite Party No: 1, created false records. Police complaint is filed, case is charge sheeted. Chandera Police seized the vehicle, insurance is obtained after nine months of purchase and complaint is without merits.
3. A Commissioner is appointed as per order in IA 238/2014. Expert filed the report that running of 73 Kilometers but did not note any damages.
4. The complainant filed his chief affidavit and Marked documents Ext A1 to A3 and also C1. A1 is delivery letter by Opposite Party No: 2 to Opposite Party No: 1, Ext A2 is the insurance policy. Ext A3 is letter by police to complainant. The Opposite Party also filed chief affidavit marked documents Ext B1 to B4. Ext B1is FIR, Ext B2 is charge sheet, Ext B3 is CC of the complaint filed before the district police chief Kasaragod, and Ext B4 is memo of evidence and 161 statement.
Following points arise for consideration in the case.
- Whether there is any deficiency in service of Opposite Party relating to not issuing temporary permit or change of ownership of the vehicle in the name.
- Whether complainant is entitled for compensation? For what reliefs?
The complainant was examined and cross examined as Pw1. He says he has not given complaint against manger Geetha or her misappropriation. But he knows registration of crime against Geetha, he is a witness in the case. He deposed that he repaid the loan installment with Opposite Party No:1. Pw1 admitted that vehicle is in his custody obtained through court. The Opposite Party though filed chief affidavit and offered for cross despite opportunity given complainant did not cross examine the Opposite Party. He admits the custody of vehicle , he is using it. He admits he availed loan facility from Opposite Party No: 2. It is obtained for the vehicle. On purchase the complainant is duty bound to re-pay the loan amount in installments. Finance is not paid to complainant but usually credited to the account of manufacturing company through its dealer as done in this case. Complaint is filed on 16/10/2014. He got his vehicle released during December 2014. He is seeking compensations for mental agony. But he has no case that he is not in possession of vehicle is ready to surrender the vehicle or not claiming value of the vehicle but he is using the vehicle.
The complainant admits delivery of the vehicle to him. Except for certain period, he is not in possession of the vehicle till date. The vehicle was removed due to criminal case against staff of Opposite Party No: 1. He has been using the vehicle also. He did not even care to cross the Opposite Party No: 1 despite opportunity given for cross examination. What is exactly his grievance is not specifically made out. He denied any knowledge about the dealer is manager but admits that he is witness in the criminal case against her charge sheeted by Chandera Police.
The consumer Commission is required to observe the principals of Natural Justice and to award relief of specific nature provided the deficiency in service proved. “Deficiency” means any fault imperfection, short coming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance and “Service” means service of any description which is made available to potential users. The complainant has only made a vague assertion that the action of the financier and Police in talking possession of the vehicle, in spite of the complainant’s assurance to the finance to clear outstanding installments and pay future installments timely, amounts to an act of unfair trade practice and constitutes deficiency in service.
Further the dealer filed police complaint against their then manger of the dealership unit of Cheruvathur for serious offence and for investigation complainant is summonsed. Vehicle is taken by police is not connected with any acts of Opposite Party’s deficiency in service or negligence. Even amended prayer complainant claims compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- but not pleaded or proved as to on what basis he has entitled to Rs. 1,00,000/- or such other amounts from Opposite Party specific pleading or evidence by complainant and no cross examination of Opposite Party by complainant.
Considering the nature and circumstances of the case, since he is in possession of the vehicle having admitted loan facility, having paid loan amount in part thus admitted his liability and no specific act of deficiency in service or negligence by Opposite Party to pleaded or proved, no allegations against Opposite Party for unfair trade practice there is no merit in the complaint and thus reason afforded complaint is not entitled to any reliefs and hence complaint is dismissed but without cost.
In the result complaint is dismissed without any order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1- Disbursement –cum – delivery letter
A2- Policy of insurance
A3- Letter issued by Sub Inspector of police, to the complainant
B1- FIR
B2- Final Report
B3- CC of the complaint filed before the district police chief Kasaragod
B4- Certified copy of memo of Evidence
C1- Commission report
Witness Examined
Pw1-Deepu Daniel
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/
