1.Complaint in short is as follows: -
Complainant is the RC owner of the Toyotta Innova Car having Registration No. KL-55 P-9327.He stated that the original RC of the vehicle is in the custody of opposite party. On 11/07/2016 complainant had obtained a financial aid of Rs. 2,60,000/- from the second opposite party through first opposite party. Opposite party No1 had received Rs. 12,000/- as processing fee from complainant. Opposite parties deducted this 12,000/- rupees from the financial aid of Rs. 2,60,000/- and the rest of the amount was given to complainant. Opposite parties agreed 24 instalments for repaying the amount and to pay Rs.14,515/- per each month. Complainant again stated that as per his calculation he had to pay the initial amount of Rs 2,60,000/- and interest Rs.88,360/- and a total of Rs.3,48,360/- to opposite parties. From 11/08/2016 to 11/09/2017 complainant paid Rs.2,08,695/- to opposite party and the pending balance is Rs. 1,39,665/-.The date of closing of the loan after 24 months was 11/07/2018.On that day he borrowed the balance amount from his friend and he decided to pay the balance amount to opposite party. But opposite party No.1 refused to receive the balance amount of Rs.1,39,665/- from complainant. Opposite party No.1 said that complainant had to pay Rs 2,27,000/- to opposite parties.Then complainant contacted opposite party No2 also. After one month opposite party No.1 contacted complainant and insisted him to pay Rs. 2,20,000/- for closing the accounts and settle the matter, otherwise, opposite parties will seize the vehicle of complainant from him.
2. On 25/10/2018 as per the advice of opposite party No.2 some persons of opposite party No.1 came to complainant’s house and shouted in front of complainant’s house and tried to take away the vehicle from complainant’s house. Then the people of that locality interfered in the matter and the opposite party returned back after threatening complainant. Complainant is afraid that opposite parties will take the vehicle forcefully from complainant. Complainant is ready to pay the amount which is legal and he is ready to pay the full amount in one instalment. Opposite parties are cheating the complainant and they trying to seize the vehicle from the complainant. The act of opposite parties caused mental agony and hardships to complainant. The act of opposite parties is clear deficiency of service. Hence this complaint.
3. Prayer of the complainant is that, he is entitled to get Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and hardship suffered by the him by the act of opposite parties.
4. On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties and notice served on them and they appeared before the Commission through their counsel and filed version.
5. In their version opposite party No.1 stated that all the averments and allegations narrated in the complaint are denied by them. Complaint is unsustainable under law there is no cause of action to invoke the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. They again stated that they are the unnecessary party in the matter. The averments in the complaint that, this opposite party is the agent of second opposite party is false and baseless. Opposite party No.1 also denied the averment in the complaint that the document of the vehicle is with them. They are neither the owner of the vehicle nor the agent of second opposite party. Hence the complaint may be dismissed.
6. Opposite party No.2 stated that, the complaint is devoid of merits and is filed
without any bonafides and without any cause of action. They again stated that they are the owner of the vehicle and the complainant is the hirer. The complainant had executed the hire purchase agreement acknowledging the terms of the hire purchase. An endorsement is made in the registration certificate as per the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act. This aspect is well reflected in the registration certificate. The complaint is filed by suppressing these aspects. They again denied that they had collected a sum of Rs. 12,000/- as expenses of process of the finance arrangement and the complainant is paid a sum of Rs. 2,60,000/- after deducting the above sum. They again admitted that the total amount of Rs. 3,48,360/- was due to this opposite party by way of hire purchase agreement and the complainant is liable to pay the same by way of 24 instalments. The same is witnessed by the payment chart produced by the complainant.
7. They again stated that complainant admitted that the full amount due is not paid by the complainant. It is true that the total amount of Rs. 1,39,665/- is due from the complainant as balance and another sum of Rs. 71,240/- is due by way of late payment upto 10th January 2019 and a sum of Rs. 17,500/- is the expenses incurred by opposite party No.2 in connection with the non-payment. In fact, a total amount of Rs. 2,28,405/- is due from the complainant to this opposite party as on 10/01/2019 and he is liable to pay the same forthwith. Moreover, they stated that complainant is not a consumer as defined by the Act. The complainant admitted that he is the hirer of the vehicle by virtue of hire purchase agreement and the relation between the complainant and second opposite party is the owner and hirer. The terms among them are being governed by the hire purchase agreement executed by the parties on 11/07/2016. The only way to dissolve the dispute is to approach arbitration which is specified clause 27 of the agreement. This also makes that complainant is not a consumer.
8. Complainant using vehicle involved for hiring, he is operating rent a car business which is a commercial aspect and this also prevents the complainant from filing a complaint like this. Opposite party No.2 already sent a lawyer notice to the complainant and guarantor Faizal demanding the amount due on 02/05/2018 and the same is refused to be received by the complainant. The present complaint is filed after getting the information of the demand notice. Complainant is the owner of several other vehicles which are hypothecated with several persons. Complainant had acted to this violation of the hypothecation agreement. Complainant not even insured the vehicle as mandate by the agreement as the statute. Hence complaint may be dismissed.
9. In order to substantiate the case of the complainant, he filed an affidavit in lieu of Chief examination and the documents he produced were marked as Ext. A1 and A2. Ext. A1 is the copy of registration Certificate, Ext. A2 is the copy of pass book given by opposite party No.2 to complainant for marking repayment details. Thereafter, opposite party No.1 and 2 are filed affidavits, but no documents produced.
10. Heard complainant and opposite parties. Perused affidavits and documents.
The following points arise for consideration: -
- Whether there is any deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
- If so, Reliefs and cost?
11. Points No.1 &2
Case of the complainant is that complainant is the RC Owner of Toyota Innova car having registration No. KL-55-P-9327, but the RC is in the custody of opposite parties. On 11/7/2016 complainant obtained a financial aid of Rs. 2,60,000/- from second opposite party through first opposite party and opposite party No.1 received Rs. 12,000/- as processing fee from complainant and they have deducted that amount from Rs. 2,60,000/- and balance amount has given to the complainant. Opposite parties demanded to pay Rs. 14,515/- every month in 24 instalments. As per complainants’ calculation, he had to pay Rs.2,60,000/- and interest of Rs. 88,360/- and total of Rs. 3,48,360/- to opposite parties. From 11/08/2016 to 11/09/2017, he paid Rs. 2,08,695/- and balance is 1,39,665/-. On 11/07/2018 the date of closing of the loan, complainant borrowed the balance amount from his friend, but opposite parties did not receive the amount from the complainant. They wanted Rs. 2,20,000/-for closing the accounts for settle the matter, thereafter opposite parties threatened the complainant and tried to take away the vehicle from complainant’s house.
12. Opposite party No.1 stated that they are unnecessary party in the complaint and they are not the agent of the second opposite party. They also denied the contention that the document of the vehicle is in their custody. They neither the owner of the vehicle nor the agent. Opposite party No.2 stated that they are the owner of the vehicle and the complainant is the hirer and they had executed a hire purchase agreement. They did not collect Rs. 12,000/- as the expenses of process of the finance arrangement and complainant is paid Rs. 2,60,000/- after deducting the above amount. But they admitted that total amount of Rs. 3,48,360/- was due and complainant is liable to pay the same by way of 24 instalments. They again stated that total amount of Rs. 1,39,665/- is due from the complainant as balance and another sum of Rs. 71,240 by way of late payment and sum of Rs. 17,500/- in connection with non-payment and the total of Rs. 2,28,405/- is due from complainant to opposite party No.2 as on 10/01/2019.
13. From the facts, it is clear that, complainant purchased vehicle with the financial aid of opposite party No.2. As per Ext. A2,the complainant purchased the above vehicle KL-55-P-9327 through hire purchase agreement dated 11/07/2016. Complainant agreed to pay Rs. 14,515/- in 24 equal monthly instalments, that means complainant had agreed to pay Rs. 348,360/- to the second opposite party. Ext. A2 document produced by complainant shows the relation between complainant and opposite party No.2 is financier and hirer. As per that document, complainant paid 13 instalments of Rs. 14,515/-. In 14th instalment dated 11/09/2017 he paid Rs.20,000/-. But complainant intentionally hide the received date and initials put by opposite parties from serial No.1 to 11. Moreover the 12th serial number is not visible also. As per schedule the 13th instalment has to pay on 11/08/2017, but paid only on 23/05/2018. 14th instalment is seen paid only 26/06/2018 instead of 11/09/2017. The documents reveals that the complainant is a defaulter. As per document, we are not in a position to arrive a conclusion that the complainant is regularly paying the instalment amount of Rs. 14,515/- and he is not liable to pay default interest. The date of payment of instalment is evident by Ext A2, but it is incomplete. Complainant did not produce the original pass book or the original of Ext. A2 document before the Commission.
14. In Ext. A2, opposite parties have clearly stated that they will seize the vehicle in case, complainant did not comply the directions 1 to 10 written therein. From the document itself reveals that complainant wanted to hide something from the Commission regarding the transactions. Moreover, Commission is unable to understand whether the original RC is with complainant or with opposite parties. It is very difficult to understand the role of opposite party No.1 in the transaction. No documents produced by complainant to show that opposite party No.1 is the agent, who connects complainant and opposite party No.2 and they helped the complainant for the financial aid from opposite party No.2. From Ext. A2, it is seen that opposite party No.2 is the financier who gave financial aid to complainant Shameer Babu, the hirer. So, the contention raised by opposite party No.1 in their version and affidavit that they are the unnecessary party is true. They are neither the owner of the vehicle nor the agent of opposite party No.2. Complainant is failed to prove the role of opposite party No.1 in the above complaint. Hence, considering the entire evidence, we are not convinced the claim of the complainant. The complainant filed this complaint suppressing the real facts and without any bonafides and so the complaint stands dismissed.
Dated this 17th day of October, 2022.
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 & A2
Ext. A1 : Copy of registration Certificate.
Ext. A2 : Copy of pass book given by opposite party No.2 to complainant for marking
repayment details.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party : Nil
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
