State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ghanshyam Sahu vs Manager, Umang Force & Others on 12 November, 2012
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PANDRI, RAIPUR
Appeal No. FA/12/279
Instituted on 15.06.2012
Ghanshyam Sahu, S/o: Shri Madanlal Sahu,
R/o: Village: Biranpur (Gandai), Tah. Chhuikhadan,
Dist. RAJNANDGAON (C.G.) ... Appellant.
Vs.
1.Manager, Umang Force, Thakkar Chamber, Power House, G.E.Road, Bhilai, Tah. & Dist. DURG (C.G.)
2. Manager, Shriram Transport Finance Ltd., Chouhan Tower, Nr. Mourya Talkies Bhilai, Tah. & Dist. DURG (C.G.)
3. Force Motor Ltd., Registered Office Mumbai, Pune Road, Arkudi, PUNE (MAHARASHTRA) 411 035 ... Respondents.
PRESENT: ‐ HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI S.C. VYAS, PRESIDENT HON'BLE SHRI V.K. PATIL, MEMBER COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES: ‐ Shri R.K. Bhawnani, for appellant.
Shri M.A. Ansari, for respondent no.1.
Shri Rajesh Pandey, for respondent no.2.
Shri Neelkanth Bhoi, for respondent no.3.
ORDER Dated: 12/11/2012 PER: ‐ HON'BLE SHRI V.K.PATIL, MEMBER This appeal is directed against the order dated 18.05.2012 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (hereinafter called "District Forum" for short) in complaint case no.07/2011 // {PAGE } // whereby complaint of the appellant herein, alleging deficiency in service against the respondents, has been dismissed.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased a four wheeler vehicle M‐4 from OP no.1/dealer on 26.11.2007 for total sum of Rs.2,77,000/‐ when Rs.50,000/‐ was deposited by him as margin money and Rs.2,20,000/‐ was paid by way of finance made available by OP no.2/finance company. Chassis no. of the vehicle was T‐19002432J/07 and engine no. was D30002609. Complainant averred that at the time of delivery of the vehicle, gate pass & delivery receipt were only provided and no documents related to the vehicle such as registration certificate, fitness certificate & insurance certificate, were provided. Complainant averred that the vehicle faced some problems so it was delivered at the work shop of OP no.1/dealer on 4.12.2007 when the vehicle had run for only 330 Km. Complainant alleged that the vehicle was not returned to him even in four months period despite frequent reminders rather OP no.1 built up pressure on him to surrender the vehicle and against his wishes forcibly got the vehicle surrendered through his father Shri Madan Lal Sahu after getting his signature on plain papers in order to execute false affidavit and agreement. Complainant further averred that an // {PAGE } // agreement to collect Rs.26,000/‐ related to the questioned vehicle was got executed by OP no.1 with his father whereas no agreement was executed by him with OP no.1 as such it had no right to collect papers related to the vehicle from his father Shri Madan Lal Sahu particularly in a situation when entire amount towards the vehicle was collected from OP no.2/financer. Due to aforesaid circumstances he could not repay the loan installments to OP no.2/financer for which it had been reminding him by way of notices to repay loan dues. Complainant alleged that the respondents having found him to be a simple villager had induced him with their mutual connivance to buy the vehicle by way of finance and pressurizedly got Rs.50,000/‐ deposited towards margin money thereby causing him financial loss to that extent. A notice through advocate was sent to the respondents on 16.12.2008 for payment of compensation amount but was of no avail. Complainant prayed before the District Forum, seeking direction to OPs to refund the amount of Rs.50,000/‐ deposited by him towards margin money along with interest @ 12% p.a. and also to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/‐ towards mental & financial harassment with cost and to return the post dated cheques submitted.
// {PAGE } //
3. OP no.1, while refuting other averments of the complainant, averred that complainant's father had purchased two vehicles from it after having been financed by OP no.2/financer despite giving him proper understanding that purchase of two vehicles would cause heavy financial burden on him. Cost of the vehicle was Rs.2,34,860/‐, registration charges was Rs.31,500/‐,insurance charges was Rs.11,000/‐ so in all total Rs.2,77,360/‐ was payable out of which Rs.2,20,000/‐ was financed and balance Rs.57,360/‐ was to be deposited as down payment by the complainant. The financed amount was repayable by way of 24 equated installments out of which first installment was payable in advance and the remaining amount was payable thereafter in monthly installments. OP no.1 averred that the complainant's father had purchased two vehicles, one in his own name and another in his son's name. Rs.1,14,720/‐ was required as down payment against the two vehicles but the complainant's father deposited only Rs.1,00,000/‐ as such balance amount Rs.14,720/‐ was still recoverable. Moreover after deduction of amount towards first installment from the financed amount, only Rs.2,08,000/‐ was received from OP no.2/financer. Out of the total amount deposited by the complainant, registration of only one vehicle in the name of complainant's father could be done, registration no. of which was CG‐07/ T.C.1627. Due to deduction of // {PAGE } // Rs.14,720/‐ from the financed amount towards first installment and also due to short of down payment total amount of Rs.38,720/‐ was less received, therefore registration of the questioned vehicle in the name of the complainant's son could not be done, despite deduction of registration charges Rs.31,500/‐ so OP no.1 had still to receive balance Rs.7,220/‐ and besides that repairing charges for the vehicle of complainant's son which amounted to Rs.24,788/‐ were not paid so in all Rs.31,008/‐ was recoverable. As against the aforesaid amount, the complainant ;s father agreed to pay Rs.26,000/‐ only in two installments of Rs.10,000/‐ and Rs.16,000/‐ so for that purpose he had executed a document No.P‐6 dated 15.03.2008, but still Rs.10,000/‐ was short paid. OP no.1 averred that since the right of ownership in respect of the vehicle under hire purchase agreement remains with the financer till the repayment of loan so after registration of only one vehicle in the name of complainant's father, the related documents were provided to OP no.2/ financer and due to legal necessity, despite the short of money in the deposited amount, insurance of both the vehicles was done and papers were provided to respondent no.2/ financer. The factual position was that the complainant had brought the questioned vehicle for repair to the workshop on 04.12.2007 due to accident and since repair due to accident was not covered under // {PAGE } // warranty, the repairing charges were chargeable. The repair of the vehicle was undertaken on the consent of the complainant's father with an understanding that repair charges would be borne by him as such intimation was also sent to the complainant on 19.12.2007 asking him to pay repairing charges Rs.24,788/‐ and to get back the vehicle, but he failed to do so. OP no.1 averred that complainant's father had defaulted in repayment of second loan installment and onward in respect of both the vehicles, so he surrendered the questioned vehicle with OP no.2 on 15.03.2008. OP no.1 has further averred that since the complainant suppressed facts deliberately and filed false complaint, so prayed for dismissal of the same.
4. OP no.2 in its reply while resisting the complaint averred that it had financed total Rs.2,78,048/‐ for purchase of the vehicle and as per finance agreement, first installment Rs.12,089/‐ was payable in advance and remaining amount was repayable in 23 monthly installments. OP no.2 further averred that it had demanded repayment of outstanding loan dues from the complainant many times, but he failed to do so and his father expressed desire to surrender the vehicle. Complainant's father had submitted a letter with the employee of OP no.2 about the delivery of the vehicle, wherein engine no. and chassis no. were // {PAGE } // mentioned by the complainant's father in his own handwriting. OP no.2 also denied that the vehicle was repossessed forcibly after collecting Rs.50,000/‐. The complainant was financed under non PDC scheme, so there was no question of returning post dated cheques. OP no.2 averred that it had not committed any deficiency in service, so prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. OP No.3 in its reply has averred that it is a manufacturing company and its relation with OP no.1 dealer is of principal to principal. OP no.3 has further averred that after production of the vehicle, it is well tested as per government recognized norms. Vehicle of the complainant was in quite good condition at the time of sale and there was no mechanical defect. OP no.3 denied to have collected Rs.50, 000/‐ from the complainant. OP no.3 prayed for dismissal of the complaint, being on false ground.
6. Initially a complaint no.07/2011 in respect of the vehicle was filed by the appellant/complainant which was dismissed being time barred by learned District Forum on 08.07.2011 but subsequently this commission in appeal no.442/2011 set aside the order passed by the learned Distrct Forum on 09.11.2011 with the direction to the District // {PAGE } // Forum to decide the case on merit providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to both the parties including opportunity of filing documents and affidavits. Accordingly learned District Forum provided opportunity to the parties to contest the dispute afresh.
7. Learned District Forum, having perused the documents produced before it, and having heard arguments advanced by the parties, dismissed the complaint.
8. We have perused the documents on record and heard arguments advanced by the parties.
9. Contention of the appellant/complainant is that the questioned vehicle delivered to the respondent no.1/dealer for the purpose of servicing, was in good condition but it replaced chassis and gear box without permission.
We find that after purchase of the vehicle, as per document no. P‐1 & P‐2 (at page s.no.59 & 60) the questioned vehicle was delivered to Sri Madan Lal father of the complainant on 26.11.2007. Subsequently, as per job card document no. N1/1 (at page sl. No.96) // {PAGE } // just after a period of one week, the vehicle was brought to the workshop of OP no.1 on 04.12.2007, and as per endorsement made in the job card, the vehicle was found to have been damaged due to accident with the under noted items:
(1) Front glass broken. (2) Left hand side door damaged. (3) Left hand side trolley damaged.
On the back page of the aforesaid job card, the estimate of repairing charges have been mentioned and the job card has been signed by Shri Madanlal Sahu, father of the appellant/ complainant as a customer.
10. As per document No.N1/2 (at page sl. No.92 & 93), the cash bill for the repairing charges is Rs.24,788/‐, which as per version of the respondent no.1 is chargeable since repairing charges due to accident is not covered by warranty , and since the appellant / complainant had not paid, the same were recoverable from him. In the aforesaid document, there is no mention about replacement of chassis or gearbox. Appellant/complainant has filed an affidavit dated 8.11.2011 (at page sl.no.33) of Gautam Sahu a driver by profession who in its para‐2 has stated that he had gone along with the appellant / complainant on 04.12.2007 to the workshop of respondent no.1/dealer // {PAGE } // where it was advised to leave the vehicle there as it would require some time and the vehicle was not returned after repair even within a period of four months despite reminders and pressurized the appellant/complainant to surrender the vehicle. Said affidavit does not mention as to for what type of problem, the vehicle was brought to garage and why it was left there for repair work. Shri Gautam Sahu has filed affidavit dated 8.11.2011 after about a period of about 4 years apparently on memory basis and not on the basis of any record. Moreover he has not mentioned even chassis no in the affidavit in support of his version so it has hardly any evidentiary value. Appellant/complainant failed to produce any material to corroborate the fact of replacement of chassis & gear box as alleged.
11. As per document No. P‐5 (at page sl. No.63), it is a letter of oath containing the name of Ghanshyam Sahu the appellant / complainant in the operative part, but the same has been signed by his father Shri Madan Lal Sahu. The document being under controversy is of no evidentiary value. Further in document No.P‐7 (at page sl. No.65) Shri Madan Lal Sahu father of the appellant /complainant has submitted a letter dated 13.10.2008 with respondent no.2 expressing desire to surrender the questioned vehicle due to non‐repayment of loan // {PAGE } // installments We find that the engine No. and chassis no. in all the documents P‐1 & P‐2, N‐1/1, and P‐7 is TI9002432J07 and D30002609 are bearing signature of Shri Madan Lal Sahu, father of the appellant/complainant. Interestingly there is no signature of the appellant/complainant Shri Ghanshyam Sahu in any of the documents related to the questioned vehicle either of purchase or surrender of the vehicle, so it implies that Shri Madan Lal Sahu had been acting on behalf of the appellant / complainant for all purposes, moreover there was no complaint as per documents available on record to the effect that the appellant/complainant had ever raised protest/resentment over aforesaid dealings made by his father. Appellant /complainant has suppressed material information about accident of the vehicle and there is no evidence about replacement of chassis and gear box in the questioned vehicle so the contention of the appellant herein is not sustainable. No case of selling defective vehicle of causing deficiency in service is made out against respondent no.1 / dealer.
12. Another contention of the appellant / complainant is that respondents forcibly repossessed the questioned vehicle.
// {PAGE } //
13. We find that there is clear admission by the appellant / complainant in para No.6 of his complaint, supported by his affidavit dated 22.12.2010, stating that he had defaulted in payment of loan installments and he had been receiving notice to that effect from respondent no.2/the financer and as per document no. P‐7, his father voluntarily surrendered the vehicle with respondent no. 2. There is no evidence about repossession of the vehicle forcibly by the respondent. When the appellant / complainant had defaulted in repayment of loan installments, from the very beginning, he could not claim benefit against his own contributory act of default leading to repossession of the vehicle and causing dispute. In view of aforesaid, if respondent no.2 has repossessed the vehicle, then it cannot be termed as having committed deficiency in service.
14. As per the case of the appellant / complainant, he has paid Rs.50,000/‐ only as margin money to respondent no.1/dealer, which he claims it now as refund whereas against this he delivered the questioned vehicle to the respondents in a damaged condition due to accident. Since respondent no.1/dealer admits to have collected margin money, but at the same time it also mentions about some amount recoverable from the appellant/complainant towards short payment // {PAGE } // and also on account of repairing charges of the questioned vehicle due to damages caused by accident. Under the circumstances it remains only a money dispute which does not fall in the domain of a Consumer Fora.
15. Another contention of the appellant / complainant is that post dated cheques submitted with respondent no.2 have not been returned to him. He has also stated the said fact in para no. 7 of his affidavit dated 22.12.2010 in support.
16. Respondent no.2, in para no.8 of its written version supported by affidavit dated 18.04.2011 of Shri Pankaj Dubey, The Branch Manager, in para no.8 has denied about receipt of any post dated cheque from the appellant / complainant. When the contradictory fact about the post dated cheques between the parties is on oath to oath and since there is no cogent material to corroborate the fact then in the circumstances, the contention of the appellant / complainant is not sustainable.
17. In the facts of the case and foregoing discussion, the appeal has no force to succeed, therefore the same is dismissed being devoid of // {PAGE } // merit, however the appellant / complainant may seek remedy in appropriate Court / Forum, if he so chooses, to resolve money dispute about refund of margin money, in which case he is granted liberty to claim relief for the period consumed before Consumer Fora in contesting his case, for the purpose of limitation. No order as to cost.
(Justice S.C.Vyas) (V.K. Patil)
President Member
/11/2012 /11/2012