State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. vs 1. Narendra Suresh Kaple on 17 October, 2011
1 F.A.No.: 1392-07
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
Date of filing : 19.12.2007
Date of Order: 17.10.2011
FIRST APPEAL NO.:1392 OF 2007
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 183 OF 2007
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM: JALGAON.
Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd.
Navi Peth, Besides Punjab National Bank,
Jalgaon. ...Appellant
-Versus-
1. Narendra Suresh Kaple
R/o. Amode, Taluka Yawal,
District-Jalgaon.
2. Mahavir Automobiles
Panna Bhuvan Compound
Varangaon Road, Bhusawal,
District Jalgaon.
3. Dusane Automobiles,
Malegaon. ... Respondents
...Respondent
... Respondent
Coram : Mr. D. N. Admane, Hon'ble Presiding Judicial Member
Mrs. Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member.
Mr. K. B. Gawali, Hon'ble Member.
Present: Adv. Shri. S.G. Karlekar, for appellant.
None for the respondent.
- :: ORAL ORDER ::-
Per Mr. K. B. Gawali, Hon'ble Member
1. The present appeal is filed by Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited, Jalgaon which was original opponent No.3 against the judgment and order dated 25.10.2007 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Jalgaon in 2 F.A.No.: 1392-07 complaint case No.183/2007. The present respondent No.1 is the original complainant, whereas respondent No.2 & 3 are the original opponent No.1&2.
2. The facts leading to the present appeal are briefed as under:
The present respondent No.1/original complainant (hereinafter referred to as "complainant") is the resident of village Amode Tq. Yawal, who purchased three wheeler Piaggio from the respondent No.2 who is the sub- dealer of respondent No.3 (referred to as "sub-dealer") with the intention to engage it on rent and thereby earn his livelihood. The respondent No.3 is the main dealer (hereinafter referred as "dealer") in respect of the said vehicle. It is contended by the respondent No.1 that he approached to the respondent No.2 for purchase of the said vehicle, when he was told that the total price of the said vehicle was Rs. 1,19,500/- which was inclusive of charges of insurance. The respondent No.2 also told that out of amount of Rs. 1,19,500/- an amount of Rs. 20,100/- would required to be paid in cash and in addition Rs. 5000/- as the booking amount. Accordingly the complainant paid the amount of Rs.5000/- towards booking of the said vehicle on 09.10.2006 and also paid Rs. 20,100/- including Rs. 600/- as miscellaneous charges to the "sub-dealer". After receipt of the said amount the complainant was given the vehicle in his possession by the sub-dealer. For the balance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on the advice of "sub-dealer" the complainant approached to the appellant Finance Company for raising loan to that extent and after completing all documents complainant was sanctioned the loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- by the Finance Company on 26.10.2006 and that amount was paid through cheque to the "sub-dealer" i.e. respondent No.2.
3. It is the case of the complainant that even after the payment of entire amount of the said vehicle to the "sub-dealer he did not issue him "sell letter"
in absence of which he could not register the said vehicle with RTO and in the result, could not use it and had to sustain financial loss. When the complainant enquired with the "dealer" about the said "sell letter" he was told that the 3 F.A.No.: 1392-07 amount was not received by him from the "Sub-dealer' and therefore the sell letter could not be issued. It was the contention of the complainant that the appellant Finance Company should have issued the cheque of Rs. 1,00,000/- directly in the name of "dealer" so that he could have received the said letter. Thus alleging that the appellant Finance Company as well as the "sub-dealer"
and the "dealer" have played unfair trade practice with him and also deficiency in service, approached to the District Forum seeking direction to issue him the "sell letter" of the vehicle and the payment of the penalty amount required to be deposited with RTO for delay in registration of the vehicle. He also prayed for directing to pay him Rs. 300/- per day along with the interest as the financial loss due to non-use of said vehicle and that the appellant finance company should not charge him any penal interest on the loan amount until the vehicle is to be put on road.
4. Appellant finance company and also the "sub-dealer" i.e. present respondent No.2 appeared before the Forum and resisted the claim. The appellant finance company submitted that it is not responsible for giving sell letter to the complainant. That it has rightly issued the cheque of the loan amount to the "sub-dealer" as complainant in his loan application had mentioned the name and address of "sub-dealer" only. Whereas, respondent No.2 submitted that he had given clear understanding to the complainant that he was only the "sub-dealer" and the said letter was to be obtained from sub- dealer and therefore he was not responsible for issuing said letter.
5. The present respondent No.3 i.e. "dealer: however did not appear before Forum although served with the notice and hence the matter was proceeded exparte against respondent No.3 by the District Forum.
6. The District Forum after hearing the parties and perusal of record partly allowed the complaint and directed the "dealer" & "sub-dealer" i.e. present 4 F.A.No.: 1392-07 respondent No. 1 &2 to issue sell letter to the complainant within a period of one month and also to pay him his daily financial loss at Rs. 250/- from the date of purchase of the vehicle till its registration with the RTO within a period of 30 days. Appellant finance company was also directed not to charge any interest or penal interest on the loan amount until the said vehicle is registered with RTO and that appellant finance company along with "dealer and "sub- dealer" were jointly and severally directed to pay Rs. 15,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and the cost of complaint with interest at 8%.
7. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order the present appeal is filed in this Commission. Notices were issued to the respondents as well as to the appellants. Matter was posted for final hearing on 17.10.2011. Adv. Shri. S.G. Karlekar appeared for appellant. None for the respondent. We heard Adv. Karlekar at length. He submitted that as per the loan application filed by the complainant he was sanctioned loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- & the same was paid to the "sub-dealer" i.e. Mahaveer Automobiles, Bhusawal. He further contended that in his loan application dated 25.10.2006 the complainant himself has mentioned the name of the "dealer" as Mahavir Automobile, Bhusawal. Therefore, the appellant finance company is not at all responsible for non- issuance of "sell letter" to the complainant. However, District Forum has wrongly held the finance company as liable and wrongly passed the impugned judgment and order. He therefore prayed to quash the order of the Forum to the extent of the appellant finance company.
8. We have carefully gone through the papers before us as well as the argument put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant. The only grievance of the complainant is that he was not issued "sell letter" due to which he could not register the vehicle with RTO and therefore the said was not used by which he has to sustain financial loss i.e. he was deprived of the daily income which he could have received from the rent of the said vehicle as the said not 5 F.A.No.: 1392-07 registered with RTO. It is revealed that the entire dealing regarding the said vehicle is made by the complainant with "sub-dealer" i.e. the present respondent No.2. The booking amount is paid to the "sub-dealer". The quotation for the said vehicle is also obtained from the sub-dealer i.e. Mahaveer Automobiles and the amount of Rs. 20,100/- and the loan amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- is also paid to the "sub-dealer: only. The vehicle is also given in his possession by the "sub-dealer only. Therefore it was the primary responsibility of the "sub-dealer: i.e. Mahaveer Automobiles, Bhusawal to issue the sell letter and other documents which are required for the registration with RTO. It is also an admitted fact that respondent No.2/sub-dealer is the representative of Respondent No.3, i.e. Dusane Automobiles, Malegaon which is the main dealer, therefore, as per the well settled principle of law the owner is also responsible for the acts done by its agent, therefore, the respondent No.3 i.e. dealer is also responsible for not issuing the "sell letter" to the complainant.
9. The appellant finance company however has no relation to play in issuance of the sell letter. The allegation made by the complainant that the cheque of the loan amount should have been issued in the name of the dealer and that the finance company has wrongly issued the same in the name of "sub-dealer" can not also be accepted, because as per the loan application the name of the dealer and address is given of "sub-dealer" only. Therefore we do not find the appellant finance company liable. However, the District Forum has not appreciated the evidence on record properly and wrongly held liable the appellant finance company.
9. In view of the aforesaid facts and observations it is only the respondent No.2 & 3 i.e. sub-dealer and the dealer are responsible for not issuing the "sell letter" and the subsequent financial loss to the complainant. Therefore, District Forum's order needs to be modified. Hence, we pass the following order:6 F.A.No.: 1392-07
-:: ORDER ::-
1. Appeal is allowed.
2. The judgment and order of the District Forum to the extent as it lie against the present appellant is quashed.
3. Rest of the order against the respondent No.2 & 3 is confirmed.
4. No order as to cost.
(K. B. Gawali) (Mrs.Uma S. Bora) (D. N. Admane) Member Member Presiding Judicial Member Kalyankar