This is a discussion on General Automobiles within the Judgments forums, part of the General Discussions category; C.D.R.F. KOLLAM : CIVIL STATION - 691013 CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::: KOLLAM consumer case(CC) No. CC/05/426 Rajendran.G, Alunkeezhil Veedu,Mylam.P.O. ...
- 09-03-2009, 01:29 PM #1Administrator
- Join Date
- Sep 2008
C.D.R.F. KOLLAM : CIVIL STATION - 691013
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::: KOLLAM
consumer case(CC) No. CC/05/426
Rajendran.G, Alunkeezhil Veedu,Mylam.P.O.
D.Prasad, Manager, Azad Auto Finance and Auto Cons
S.Manju,Marketing Executive, General Automobiles,Pulamon.P.O.
1. K. VIJAYAKUMARAN : President
2. RAVI SUSHA : Member
3. VIJYAKUMAR. R : Member
ORDER SRI.K. VIJAYAKUMARAN, PRESIDENT.
The complainant purchased a two wheeler boxer A.R. paying Rs.12,500 in cash and Rs.28,000/- by way of loan from the 1st opp.party. Though it was told that the interest rate is 18% when the pass book was issued it was seen that the rate of interest is 24% . The complainant remitted the entire loan amount in 24 instalments at the rate of Rs.1725/- . The opp.party collected Rs.500/- towards DD charge. While so on 23.6.2005 the vehicle was involved in a accident and when the R.C. book of the vehicle was demanded for claiming the Insurance amount. The opp;.parties demanded 8,000/- more. The complainant was not willing to pay the above sum and their upon the opp.parties threatened him same they will ceased the motor cycle. The opp.parties has collected 3 blank signed cheques of Canara Bank from the opp.party and blank signed 50/- stamp paper and 2 white paper in which the signature of the complainant was obtained was revenue stamp. In addition to one key of vehicle and R.C. book the complainant is entitled to get back the above. Hence the complaint
Opp.parties 1 and 2 entered appearance. The first opp.party filed a version. Contending, interalias, that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The first opp.party has not entered into any financial dealings with the complainant. The first opp.party did not give any loan to the complainant nor collected any cheque or signed blank papers or R.C. book of the vehicle or the duplicate key. The first opp.party has not executed any hire purchase agreement the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. The hire purchase agreement between the complainant and Kataria Investments, Chennai. The first opp.party is only a witness. So Kataria Investments, Chennai is a necessary party. Hence the first opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint.
Points that would arise for consideration are:
1.Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties
2.Relief and costs.
For the complainant PW.1 is examined. Ext.P1 to P3 are marked.
No oral or documentary evidence for the opp.party
The case of the complainant is that he has availed a vehicle finance of Rs.28,000/- from the opp.parties for the purchase of a Motor Cycle and that even after payment of the entire loan amount the opp.party is not releasing the R.C. Book duplicate key etc. of the vehicle alleging that a sum of Rs.8000/- more is due to them.
According to the opp.party the transaction between the complainant is one under a hire purchase agreement and the ownership of the vehicle is vested with the 3rd opp.party and the complainant has no proprietary right over the vehicle and he is only a bailee and not a Consumer within the meaning of Sec. 2  [d] of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and therefore this complaint is not maintainable
As a matter of fact the hire purchase agreement was not produced. In fact the complainant himself has admitted that the transaction is under a hire purchase agreement. The R.C. Book of the vehicle is also not produced with the result that it could not be ascertained as to who is the R.C. owner of the vehicle.
It is well settled that under a hire purchase transaction the financier not rendering any service within the meaning of Sec. 2 [o] of the Consumer Protection Act and therefore the hirer is not a consumer within the meaning of sec. 2 [d] of the Consumer Protection Act. Therefore the complainant herein is not a Consumer and his complaint alleging deficiency in service is not maintainable before this Forum. The complainant has also failed to establish that the ownership of the vehicle is vested with him. Therefore he has no locus standi to file this complaint before this Forum and reliance’s can be drawn from the decision of National Commission reported in III  CPJ 21. Therefore we hold that this complaint is not maintainable before this forum. The complainant can move appropriate Forum to redress his grievance if so advised. Point found accordingly.
In the result the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.
** PMs asking me for support will be deleted unless I've asked you to PM me with additional details **
- By Unregistered in forum After Sale Services IssuesReplies: 4Last Post: 12-06-2012, 12:41 PM
- By admin in forum Four WheelerReplies: 0Last Post: 09-06-2009, 06:00 PM
- By Advocate.sonia in forum JudgmentsReplies: 0Last Post: 09-02-2009, 12:25 PM
- By Advocate.sonia in forum JudgmentsReplies: 0Last Post: 09-02-2009, 11:47 AM
- By Sidhant in forum JudgmentsReplies: 0Last Post: 09-01-2009, 08:30 PM