National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Parameswari vs The General Manager V.S.T. Service ... on 11 February, 2010
This appal arises from the order dated 21 NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL No. 471 of 2005 (From the Order dated 21.07.2005 in Original Petition No. 60 of 2002 of the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai) 1. Parameswari W/o Ramakrishnan Sivara Kottai Village & Post Appellant Tirumangalam Taluk Madurai District, Tamil Nadu versus 1. The General Manager V.S.T. Service Station Gandhi Nagar, Vellore Tamil Nadu 2. The Branch Manager Respondents Tata Finance Limited 116, Thyagaraya Road T. Nagar, Chennai 3. The United India Insurance Company Mount Road, Chennai BEFORE: Honble Mr Justice R. C. Jain Presiding Member Honble Mr Anupam Dasgupta Member For the Appellant Mr. Anil Kaushik, Ms. Arnumia Dwivedi, Ms. Mary Mtizy & Mr. K.B. Pradeep, Advocates For Respondent no.1 Ms. Astha Tyagi, Ms. Shuchi Singh & Mr. Varun Kumar, Advocates For Respondent No.3 Ms. Suman Bagga, Advocate Dated 11th February 2010 ORDER
Anupam Dasgupta This appeal arises from the order dated 21.07.2005 of the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (hereafter, the State Commission) in original petition no. 60 of 2002. By the said order, the State Commission dismissed the complaint of Parameswari in which she had alleged deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties/respondents. The grounds in the complaint were that she had purchased a motor vehicle from opposite party/respondent no. 1 by availing of loan financing from opposite party/respondent no. 2 under a Hire Purchase Agreement for which she had made an initial payment of Rs.1, 25,000/- out of the total cost of Rs.5, 19,000/-. The vehicle, which had been duly insured with respondent/opposite party no. 3, met with an accident on 30.04.2000 whereupon the appellant/complainant took the vehicle to opposite party/respondent no. 1 for necessary repairs. Though the vehicle was repaired, opposite party/respondent no.1 failed to hand over the vehicle to the complainant/appellant in spite of her requests and presentations. In the meanwhile, opposite party/respondent no.2 insisted on the complainant/appellant paying the due installments of the loan. On failure of respondent/opposite party no. 1 to hand over the repaired vehicle even after a visit to the service station of respondent/opposite party no. 1 on 02.03.2001, the complainant/appellant issued a legal notice to the opposite parties following which she filed the complaint in question. The opposite parties denied the allegations in the complaint and made several representations before the State Commission to show that there was no deficiency in service on the part of any of the opposite parties. On consideration of the matter, the State Commission passed the impugned order as already noticed.
2. We have heard Mr. Anil Kaushik, learned counsel on behalf of the appellant/complainant, Ms. Astha Tyagi, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 and Ms. Suman Bagga, learned counsel for respondent no. 3. None was, however, present on behalf of respondent no. 2, viz., Branch Manager, Tata Finance Ltd., Chennai at the time of final hearing of this appeal.
3. The main point argued by Mr. Kaushik, learned counsel for the appellant/complainant is that respondent/opposite party no. 1 handed over the repaired vehicle to respondent/opposite party no. 2 without any intimation to the appellant/complainant and respondent no. 2, in turn, sold the vehicle to a third party, without any prior notice/intimation to the appellant/complainant and appropriated the proceeds of the sale in partial settlement of the outstanding loan. Mr. Kaushik further argued that the appellant/complainant was unable to remit the due installments to respondent/opposite party no. 2 in time mainly because the vehicle, after it met with the accident, remained with respondent/opposite party no. 1 for a long time for repairs and that respondent no.1 failed to hand over the possession of the repaired vehicle to enable her to ply it for the purpose for which it was purchased. These actions on the part of respondents/opposite parties no. 1 and 2 amounted to deficiency in service of which the State Commission failed to take appropriate notice in passing the impugned order.
4. On the other hand, Ms. Tyagi has argued that the vehicle was promptly repaired after it met with the accident and was brought to respondent/opposite party no.
1. However, respondent/opposite party no. 1could not hand over the vehicle back to the appellant/complainant because she failed to settle the repair charges of Rs.1, 58,501.30/- in time. As the vehicle was insured with respondent/opposite party no. 3 and respondent/opposite party no. 2 continued to be the owner of the vehicle during the currency of the Hire Purchase Agreement, respondent/opposite party no. 2 lodged a claim with the respondent/opposite party no. 3 for indemnifying the cost of repairs to the insured vehicle. Respondent/opposite party no. 3 was willing to settle the claim for a sum of Rs.1, 15,000/-. Even after adjusting it, the appellant/complainant was still to pay a sum of Rs.43,501/-. She has further contended that while the vehicle was still with respondent/opposite party no. 1 after repairs, respondent no. 2 took steps to repossess and dispose of the vehicle for failure of the appellant/complainant to pay the due installments in time. Thereafter, respondent no. 2 allowed another person, one Ramadoss to purchase the vehicle for Rs.1,75,000/- and the latter paid the amount in two installments. At the end of this transaction, the vehicle was transferred by respondent no. 2 to the new purchaser. The repair charges owed by the complainant/appellant to respondent no. 1 was settled directly by the insurance company (respondent no.
3) to the extent of Rs.1, 15,000/- and the balance sum of Rs.43, 501/- was remitted to respondent no. 1 by respondent no. 2 out of the sale proceeds of the vehicle. Ms. Tyagi has further submitted, and in our view, rightly, that in accordance with the ratio of the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Managing Director, Orix Auto Finance (India) Ltd. versus Jagmander Singh and Another [(2006) 2 SCC 598] and of this Commission in the case of Manger, St. Marys Hire Purchase versus M. A. Jose [III 1995 CPJ 58 (NC)], there was no legal impediment on respondent no. 2 to repossess the vehicle in terms of the Hire Purchase Agreement on failure of the appellant/complainant to pay the due installments and the fact that after repossession, respondent no. 2 disposed it of could also not be a ground for her to contend that she (complainant) was prejudiced.
5. We find that the facts stated by Ms. Tyagi are undisputed and have been noted as such in the impugned order. Moreover, the State Commission has observed that the registration certificate of the vehicle was in the name of the respondent/opposite party no. 2 and the respective rights of the appellant/complainant as well as respondent no. 2 to the vehicle were governed strictly by the terms of the Hire Purchase Agreement and that the latter acted in accordance with the said terms. The appellant/complainant has not been able to demonstrate to us what prejudice, if any, was caused to her by respondent no. 2 on account of the latter selling the vehicle for the sum of Rs.1, 75,000/- to a third person, without issuing any notice to her, when she had admittedly failed to remit the due installments of the loan for several months. The State Commission has also adequately dealt with this issue in paragraph 8 of its impugned order. Thus, both in terms of facts of the case and the settled law on the subject, there is no infirmity in the impugned order.
6. In view of the discussion above, we do not find any ground to interfere with the well-reasoned order of the State Commission, which has appropriately dealt with the grounds/allegations in the complaint on the basis of material facts, documents and evidence brought on record. As a result, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
[R. C. Jain, J] ..
[Anupam Dasgupta]