Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/62/2017

R.Katappa S/o Late Rangappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Properiter,Mahindra Motors - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.H.R.Jagadeesh

08 Dec 2017

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:15.06.2017

DISPOSED      ON:08.12.2017

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

CC.NO: 62/2017

 

DATED:  8^th DECEMBER 2017

PRESENT: - SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH  : PRESIDENT                                   B.A., LL.B.,

                   SRI.N. THIPPESWAMY        :MEMBER

                                 B.A., LL.B.,   

……COMPLAINANT	R.Katappa, S/o Late Rangappa, Age: 60 Years, Agriculturist, S. Neralakatte, Hosadurga Taluk, Chitradurga.      (Rep by Sri.H.R. Jagadeesh, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTIES	1. The Proprietor/Manager, M/s Mahindra Bellary Motors Sales Pvt. Ltd., OPP: Vaibhav Hotel, NH-4 Service Road, Chitradurga.   2. The Branch Manager, Pragathi Krishna Grameena Bank, Doddatekalavatty, Hosadurga.   (Rep by Sri.M.V. Veeranna, Advocate for OP No.1 and Sri.A.M. Rudramuni, Advocate for OP No.2)

ORDER

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH:   PRESIDENT

The above complaint has been filed by the complainant u/Sec.12 of the C.P Act, 1986 for the relief to direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards damages, Rs.20,000/- towards Spare Key charges, cost and other incidental charges for Rs.30,000/-, in all Rs.1,00,000/- with interest and such other reliefs.

2.     The brief facts of the case of the above complainant are that, he purchased Mahindra Bolero ZLX 2 WD vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA-16 A-0744 from OP No.1 on 26.03.2015 by availing loan from OP No.2.  It is further submitted that, the complainant has cleared the entire loan obtained from the OP No.2.  After clearing the entire loan, the complainant approached the OP No.2 stating that, OP OP No.1 has not handed over the spare key to him.  On 23.03.2017, the OP No.2 written a letter to the complainant stating that, OP No.1 has not handed over the spare key to him.  After that, the complainant approached OP No.1 asking to handover the spare key.  But, the OP No.1 was not properly responded.  Thereafter, the complainant has issued legal notice to the OP No.1 and 2 on 03.04.2017, the same was served to the OP No.2.  Even after service of the legal notice, OP No.1 has not given any reply and also has not attempting to handover the spare key to the complainant.  It is further submitted that, the complainant has to bring his vehicle to the show room and left the vehicle for a week at the show room and ha to spend huge amount to get the spare key.  It is further respectfully submitted that, the complainant even after service of the legal notice, he approached OP No.1 requesting to handover the spare key.  But the OP No.1 has replied in a rude manner.  So both the parties have committed deficiency of service.  The cause of action for this complaint arose on 03.04.2017 when the legal notice issued to the OPs which is within the jurisdiction of this Forum.  Further complainant prays to order Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and hardship, Rs.20,000/- towards spare key charges and Rs.30,000/- towards cost in all Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest @ 24% p.a.  

 3.    On service of notice, OP No.1 appeared through Sri.M.V. Veeranna, Advocate and OP No.2 appeared through Sri. A.M. Rudramuni, Advocate and filed their respective version. 

It is submitted by the OP No.1 in its version that, complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  The complainant has sworn a false affidavit and material facts, those are all false.  The complaint is barred by limitation and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.  The allegations made against the OP No.1 is clearly false, created and concocted.  The averments made in para 2 of the complaint is the matter of record and proof.  The allegations made in para 3 of the complaint are all false and created.  The allegations made in para 4 of the complaint is the matter of subject and proof of the subject matter.  Mere non reply of the legal notice of the complainant is not a criteria or is not the mistake of the case on hand.  The entire averments made in para-5 and 6 of the complaint are all false.  The same has to be proved by the complainant.  There is no cause of action arose for this complaint.  It is submitted that, the complainant has purchased the alleged vehicle from OP No.1.  Soon after the purchase, the OP No.1 has given or handover all the necessary documents along with spare key of the vehicle to the complainant and further the complainant has handed over the same to OP No.2.  It clearly answered by the complainant and OP No. 2, OP No.1 has handed over the key to the complainant.  If the OP No.1 really has not handed over the key to the complainant or to OP No.2, the OP No.2 will demanded the OP No.1 to give spare key.  But, till today, the OP No.2 has not demanded for the spare key.  Already 2 ½ years completed, now the complainant come and asked the key.  So, this complaint is barred by limitation.  On this point only, the complainant has created a false and concocted story.  The complainant only to give unnecessary trouble to the OPs filed this complaint.  As per the information given by the OP No.1 that, the complainant or OP No.2 might have lost the key.  It is further submitted that, OP No.2 has admitted in para 5 of the version stating that, the complainant has handed over only the bill to it and not given any key.  But, the complainant has received the entire documents along with key and he has not handed over the same to the Bank.  It is the duty of the OP No.2 to collect the documents and key from the complainant and it is not their duty to hand over the same to the financier.  When the complainant has cleared the entire loan, it is the duty of the OP No.2 to hand over all the documents along with key.  When the party has paid the DD to him and delivered the vehicle, on that day itself, we have handed over the necessary documents along with key or to his financier.  In this case also, OP No.1 has handed over the key to the complainant.  It is the duty of the OP No.2 to collect the same from the complainant. 

OP No.2 filed version stating that, OP No.2 admits that, the complainant has purchased the vehicle from the OP No.1 by obtaining the loan from it.  The complainant has received the DD from OP No.2 and handed over the same to the OP NO.1.  In turn, OP No.1 has delivered the vehicle to the complainant and at the same time, the OP No.1 has handed over all the documents to the complainant.  But the key was not handed over to it.  There is a procedure under law that, if the company has received the DD from the complainant, it is the duty of OP No.1 to send one set of documents along with spare key to it.  But, in this case the complainant or OP No.1 have not send any key to it.  It is the duty of the OP No.1 to send the same to OP No.2.  The para 5 of the complaint is not known to this OP.  It is true that, the complainant has issued legal notice through his Advocate and requested to hand over the key to him.  The legal notice was served on 03.04.2017.  OP No.2 is not a necessary party to this complaint.  When the loan was cleared, it is the duty of the OP No.1 to hand over the key to the OP No.2.  If the OP No.1 handed over the key to them, they will hand over the same to complainant.  In this case, complainant nor OP No.1 have handed over any key to it.  Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint against OP No.2. 

4.     Complainant has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.A-1 to A-4 were got marked.   OP No.1 has examined one Sri.J.R. Srinivasulu, the Branch Manager, Bellary Motors Sales Pvt. Ltd., as DW-1 and relied on Ex.B-1 document.  OP No.2 has examined one Sri.Ganesh Babu, Manager as DW-2 and no documents have been got marked.

5.     Arguments heard. 

6.     Now the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaints are that;

(1)  Whether the complainant proves that the OP No.1 and 2 have jointly and severally committed deficiency of service in not handing over the spare key to him and entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in the above complaint?

              (2) What order?

        7.     Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

        Point No.1:- Partly in Affirmative.

        Point No.2:- As per final order.

REASONS

8.     It is not in dispute that, complainant approached the OP No.1 for purchasing the Mahindra Bolero GLX 2WD vehicle with the financial assistance of OP No.2.  OP No.2 agreed to send the loan in favour of the complainant for purchase of the vehicle and released the loan to the complainant through DD.  In turn, the complainant handed over the same to OP No.1 and taken delivery of the vehicle, the same was registered as KA-16 N-0744.  After completion of the entire loan, the complainant approached the OP No.1 asking to handover the spare key.  But, OP No.1 says that, we have already received the entire documents along with key.  But, in this regard, OP No.1 never produced any documents to show that, the key was handed over to the complainant.  The OP No.1 stated in its version that, the complainant already received the entire documents along with spare key.  It is not possible to hand over the key to the complainant when the complainant has approached the OP No.2 for obtaining loan for purchasing the vehicle.  The company has to send the spare key to the Bank authority.  But, in this case, the OP No.2 has stated that the OP No1 or complainant have not handed over the key, only the documents were handed over to it.  It is the duty of the company to send the spare key to the financier.  Here also OP No.1 is the authorized dealer, its duty is to send the key to OP No.2.  As per documents produced by the complainant it clearly shows that, the OP No.1 has committed deficiency of service by not handing over the key to the complainant though the complainant has cleared the entire loan.  It is the duty of OP No.1 to hand over the key to the complainant.  In Ex.B-1 it is written that, on 26.03.2015 the complainant has received the documents, Form-22, sale letter, TP insurance, invoice and further written that, key (1).  It clearly shows that, the word “key” is inserted recently in the said letter.  Therefore, we feel that, OP No.1 has committed deficiency in service in handing over the key to the complainant.

9.   We have gone through the entire documents which clearly goes to show that, complainant has purchased Mahindra Bolero vehicle from OP No.1 by availing loan from OP No.2 on 26.03.2015 and further the complainant has clared the entire loan obtained from OP No.2.  Further the complainant asked the OPs to hand over the key but, they have given evasive answers.  Finally, complainant got issued legal notice to both parties.  The notice was served on them on 05.04.2017.  Even after service of notice, they have not handed over the spare key to the complainant.  Normally when the party obtained loan from the Bank, Bank authority have issued DD in the name of company through complainant.  In this case also, complainant has received DD from OP No.2 and handed over the same to OP No.1.  OP No.1 delivered the vehicle to the complainant.  But, it is the duty of the company to send the key along with documents to the OP No.2/financier.  In this case OP No.1 has not send the key to OP No.2, which is a deficiency of service on the part of OP No.1 for non-supplying of the documents along with key to the complainant.    Accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as partly affirmative to the complainant.

 

          10.     Point No.2:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein we pass the following:-

ORDER

It is ordered that, the above complaint filed by the complainant u/Sec.12 of C.P. Act is hereby allowed in part.

It is ordered that, the OP No.1 is hereby directed to hand over the original set of new keys to the complainant.  If fails to hand over the keys, the OP No.1 is hereby directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.

It is further ordered that, the OP No.1 is hereby directed pay Rs.5,000/- towards costs of the proceedings the complainant.

Complaint filed as against OP No.2 is hereby dismissed.   

It is further ordered that, the OP No.1 is hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of this order.

            (This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 08/12/2017 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)         

 

                                     

 MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

 

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:  Complainant by way of affidavit evidence.

Witnesses examined on behalf of OPs:

DW-1:- Sri. R. Srinivasulu by way of affidavit evidence.

DW-2:- Sri.Ganesh Babu by way of affidavit evidence.

 

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Letter dated 23.03.2017 written by OP No.2 to complainant
02	Ex-A-2:-	Letter dated 14.03.2017 written by OP No.2 to complainant
03	Ex.A-3:-	Legal notice dated 03.04.2017
04	Ex.A-4:-	Postal receipt and postal acknowledgement

 

Documents marked on behalf of OPs:

01

Ex-B-1:-

Acknowledgement

 

MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT

Rhr**