State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd. vs Inderjit Singh on 5 January, 2016
2nd Additional Bench
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION,
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 1071 of 2014
Date of institution: 30.07.2014
Date of decision : 05.01.2016
1. Hinduja Leyland Finance Limited, SCO No. 39, Top Floor,
Phase-5, Mohali through its Manager/Incharge.
2. Hinduja Leyland Finance Limited No. 167/169, 3rd Floor, Anna
Salai, Saidapet, Chennai.
3. Anuj Doobey, Head of Mohali Branch, SCO No. 39, Top Floor,
Phase-5, Mohali.
.....Appellants/Opposite Parties
Versus
1. Inderjit Singh S/o Late Gurdial Singh, R/o H. No. 3292, Sector-
70, Mohali.
..........Respondent/Opposite Party
2. M/s Mohali Cargo Movers, Balongi Sales Tax Barrier, Mohali
through its Incharge/Manager
................proforma respondent
First Appeal against the order dated
24.06.2014 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, SAS
Nagar Mohali.
Before:-
Sh. Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
Sh. Jasbir Singh Gill, Member Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Kulwinder Singh, Advocate For respondent No. 1 : Mrs. Savita Tanwar, Advocate For respondent No. 2 : Service dispensed with GURCHARAN SINGH SARAN (PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER) This appeal has been preferred by appellants/Opposite Parties No. 1-3 (hereinafter referred as 'OPs') under Section 15 of the FA No. 1071 of 2014 2 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against the order dated 24.06.2014 in C.C. No. 572 of 20.11.2013 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, SAS Nagar Mohali (in short the 'District Forum') vide which the complaint filed by the respondent No. 1/complainant (hereinafter referred as 'complainant') was allowed with the directions to OPs to handover complete set of documents to the complainant for registration of the vehicle in his favour and also to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- on account of compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 5000/- as cost of litigation. The amount be paid within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order failing which it will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till payment.
2. Complaint was filed by the complainant against OPs under section 12 of the Act on the averments that OPs company is a private finance company deals in providing vehicle loans having its head office at Chennai and branch office at Phase-5, Mohali. Complainant approached OPs for purchase of three wheeler auto to earn his livelihood and agreed to purchase the PIAGGIO three wheeler bearing registration number PB-654259 and deal was finalised @ Rs. 55,000/- as full and final consideration. According to conditions of OPs, complainant paid an advance amount of Rs. 5000/- cash on 02.10.2013 and OP No. 3 asked the complainant to give to company 15-20 days more for permission/approval for sale of vehicle and to hand over the documents of the said vehicle to the complainant. He also assured the complainant that all the original documents of the said vehicle will be handed over to him and transfer papers will be FA No. 1071 of 2014 3 prepared in the name of the complainant. After 20 days, the complainant approached OPs, when officials of OPs backed from their deal and demanded Rs. 65,000/- for the said vehicle. Otherwise agreement/advance loan will lapse. The complainant requested to OPs that he was not in a position to pay excess amount but officials of OOPs refused to listen anything and finally the deal was struck at Rs. 60,000/- and amount was paid in cash to company on 25.10.2013 as full and final sale consideration of three wheeler. OP company asked the complainant to give blank stamp paper of Rs. 100/- which was handed over to the officials of OPs who took his signatures on blank stamp paper and assured that these are required for transfer of ownership rights in favour of the complainant. But till date the said signed blank stamp paper was not returned to the complainant. After receiving the full payment, the company handed over the vehicle release letter to the complainant for release of the vehicle which was parked at M/s Cargo Movers Premises at Balongi, District Mohali. When he reached there to get the vehicle, they demanded Rs. 1500/- as parking fee. The complainant again contacted OPs and inquired about illegal parking amount but OPs stated that the complainant was responsible for parking fee and accordingly, he had to pay this amount to get the possession of the vehicle. In the meantime, OP company also changed the tyre and battery with bad conditioned tyre and battery. The complainant again approached OPs company for release of the documents but OP No. 3 refused to deliver the said documents to the complainant stating that these were with head office at Chennai. The act and conduct of OPs amounted to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Hence the complaint FA No. 1071 of 2014 4 demanding back excess charged amount of Rs. 5000/- alongwith parking fee of Rs. 1500/-, Rs. 9000/- forr replacement of tyre and battery, Rs. 1000/-, amount spent on the visiting to OPs, Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony and Rs. 5000/- as litigation expenses, in all Rs. 71,500/-
3. The complaint was contested by OPs No. 1 to 3 whereas OP No. 4 was ex-parte before the District Forum. OPs No. 1 to 3 in their written reply took preliminary objections that the complainant was not the consumer as the vehicle was purchased in the auction by giving bid as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in UT Chandigarh Administration & Anr Vs. Amarjit Singh & Others that auction purchaser is not a consumer, therefore, the District Forum did not have the jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the complaint. The complaint was baseless and flagrant abuse of process of law and that the complaint was false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the complainant, therefore, liable to be dismissed under section 26 of the Act. On merits, it was admitted that OP company deals in providing vehicle loan and that the complainant had approached these OPs and had purchased the vehicle in auction on "AS IS WHERE IS" basis, therefore, the complaint was liable to be dismissed. The complainant had inspected the vehicle and after that he gave a bid under his signature i.e. Rs. 60,000/- as full and final consideration and he was declared successful being the highest bidder and release order was issued on 25.10.2013. The complainant never approached OPs to get the documents. Other averments as stated in the complaint were denied. It was stated that the complaint was without merit, therefore, it be dismissed. FA No. 1071 of 2014 5
4. Before the District Forum, parties adduced evidence in support of their contentions. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1, copy of receipt of Rs. 60,000/-, copy of letter dated 25.10.2013, receipt regarding parking charges Ex. C-3 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Gagandeep Singh Authorized representative of OPs , receipt dated 31.01.2014 Ex. OP-1, auction letters dated 18.10.2013 and 15.10.2013 & 10.10.2013 Ex. OP-2, Ex. OP-3 and Ex. OP-4, letter dated 25.10.2013 Ex. OP-5, terms and conditions of sale Ex. OP-6 and closed the evidence.
5. After going through the allegations as alleged in the complaint, written reply filed by OPs, evidence and documents on the record, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint in terms stated above.
6. Aggrieved with the order, the OPs No. 1-3/appellants have filed this appeal.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
8. It has been argued by the counsel for appellants/OPs that the order passed by the District Forum is liable to be set-aside on the ground that the complainant had already received the required documents vide letter Ex. OP/1. While returning the findings in favour of the complainant, the District Forum had given undue weigtage to the false story created by the complainant. District Forum had failed to take into consideration the objections taken by OPs that the complainant was not consumer as the vehicle was purchased by the complainant in open auction 'AS IS WHERE IS' basis. The FA No. 1071 of 2014 6 compensation allowed by the District Forum to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs. 5000/- is highly exaggerated.
9. Firstly coming to the preposition whether the complainant is a consumer qua OPs or not. In the written reply OPs have taken the objection that the complainant had purchased the vehicle in open auction therefore, he is not the consumer and has referred the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in UT Chandigarh Administration & Anr Vs. Amarjit Singh & Others in 2009 (2) CPC that in case the vehicle is purchased in open auction, then he is not the consumer. No doubt that with regard to the vehicle, it was purchased in open auction on the principal 'AS IS WHERE IS' basis. In case, the complaint of the complainant would have been with regard to any deficiency in the vehicle, then certainly OPs were justified in that situation the complaint filed by the complainant would have not been maintainable. However, here the preposition is different with regard to handing over the required documents in favour of the complainant from the previous owner. Since the auction was held by OPs, therefore, it was duty of OPs to get all the relevant documents for the transfer of ownership in favour of the complainant and in case those documents were not handed over to the complainant then certainly deficiency is on the part of OPs. The complainant had purchased the vehicle from OPs then relationship of complainant and service provider existed there with regard to supplying the documents to the complainant. Therefore, we do not agree with the plea raised by the counsel for OPs that there was not relationship of consumer and service provider between the complainant and OPs in view of the situation explained above.
FA No. 1071 of 2014 7
10. Next point raised by the counsel for OPs that documents were supplied by OPs to the complainant vide Ex. OP/1. In case we go through the pleadings of the complainant in the complaint, it revealed that three wheeler was purchased by the complainant in open auction in October 2013 from OPs and the complainant was the highest bidder. The documents with regard to auction has been placed on record Ex. OP-2 to OP-4 and the complainant was the highest bidder. Then he has referred document Ex. OP/1 dated 31.01.2014 vide which it has been stated that all the documents were given to the complainant. However, the complainant in his complaint has stated that at the time of auction, his signatures were taken on some printed/blank paper. In fact, he did not get these documents, otherwise, there was no purpose for him to go time and again to OPs to get the same documents, in case same were handed over to the complainant. It seems that on the signature of the complainant, a letter has been prepared with regard to supply of these documents. These documents are in the nature of NOC, Forms No. 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 & 35. In case, OPs had kept the record of auction, then office copies of that record would have been with OPs, but those have not been placed on record. Therefore, from the conduct of the parties, it appears that original document as referred above in Ex. OP/1 were not supplied to the complainant. It seems that document to OP/1 was created just to show that these were supplied to the complainant. Witness to the receipt is one Sh. Deepak S/o Sh. Geeta Ram resident of House No. 2183 Sector 37-C, Chandigarh. The examination of that witness was the best evidence. However OPs have examined only one Gagandeep Singh representative of OPs No. 1 to 3 and FA No. 1071 of 2014 8 witness Deepak referred above was not examined by them who was the best witness to say whether the documents mentioned in Ex. OP/1 were handed over to the complainant. Therefore, on the basis of appreciation of the evidence on the record, it appears that the documents for transfer of ownership of the vehicle from the previous owner in favour of the complainant were not supplied by OPs to the complainant, that was the reason that the complainant was approaching the OPs time and again to supply the documents so that the ownership of the vehicle could be transferred in his name. The District Forum rightly appreciated the evidence on record that documents as referred in OP/1 were not supplied to the complainant. We are of the opinion that these findings are correct and we do not see any reason to differ with it. Therefore, on that point findings so recorded by the District Forum are hereby affirmed.
11. Next question is with regard to the compensation allowed to the complainant. As per the pleadings on the record, the total sale price of the vehicle which was purchased by the complainant in auction was Rs. 60,000/- and only on account of not handing over the documents for the transfer of ownership of the vehicle, compensation of Rs. 50,000/- has been allowed by the District Forum. It seems to be on the higher side keeping in view of the deficiency in service on the part of OPs. It is required to be reduced. Therefore, the order so passed by the District Forum required modification.
12. In view of the above, we partly accept the appeal. The compensation allowed by the District Forum is on the higher side. Instead of Rs. 50,000/- OPs will be liable to pay compensation to the FA No. 1071 of 2014 9 tune of Rs. 25,000/-. Other part of the order of the District Forum is hereby affirmed. No order as to costs.
13. The appellants had deposited amounts of Rs. 25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal and Rs. 25,000/- was deposited on 01.10.2014 in compliance with the order dated 26.08.2014. Out of this amount, Rs. 30,000/- along with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to respondent No. 1/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days, from the date of sending the certified copies of the order to the parties subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court and remaining amount be refunded back to the appellants/OPs No. 1-
3.
14. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 11.12.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
(GURCHARAN SINGH SARAN) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (JASBIR SINGH GILL) MEMBER (SURINDER PAL KAUR) MEMBER January 5, 2016.
Rupinder FA No. 1071 of 2014 10