BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.166-2014

DATED ON THIS THE 4^th March 2016

      Present:  1) Sri. H.M.Shivakumara Swamy

B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT   

    2) Smt. M.V.Bharathi                    

                                   B.Sc., LLB., -  MEMBER

                     3) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.                  

                                                          B.E., LLB.,    - MEMBER

Sri Devakumar.M.C.

Member

1.     The complainant filed the complaint under section 12 of the C.P.Act, against the opposite parties, seeking a direction to pay a sum of `3,00,000/- towards damages and compensation for the deficiency in service.
2.     The complainant availed vehicle loan from opposite party Nos.1 and 2 by executing a loan cum hypothecation agreement and agreed to repay in 48 EMIs.  The vehicle met with an accident and was submitted to opposite party No.3 for repair.  The opposite party No.3 recovered the insurance claim from opposite party No.4 and by repossessing the vehicle from opposite party No.3, sold the same by auction without intimating the same.  Thereby the complainant suffered loss and mental agony.  As such, alleging the deficiency in service filed the complaint and sought the reliefs.
3.     Opposite party Nos.1 and 2 admitted the issuance of the loan and the same was not repaid promptly.  As such, repossessed the vehicle and sold to another person to recover the dues.  Still the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 suffer loss.  The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 initiated arbitration proceedings to recover the dues which is pending for consideration.  As such, claims there is no deficiency in service and not liable to pay any compensation.
4.     Opposite party No.3 repaired the vehicle and intimated the complainant, to pay the repair charges and to collect the vehicle.  But complainant failed to pay and receive the vehicle.  As such, claimed insurance amount from opposite party No.4.  As per the directions of opposite party Nos.1 and 2, the vehicle was delivered to another person.  Hence, there is no deficiency in service by it.
5.     The opposite party No.4 submitted there is no allegation against it, the complaint is liable to be dismissed against it.
6.     Both side parties have filed their affidavit and placed certain documents to establish their averments.  Written arguments also filed.  On perusal of the material on record, the matter posted for orders.
7.     The points arose for our consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant establishes the deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and thereby entitled for the reliefs?
2. What order?

8.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :- In the negative.

Point No.2 :- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

9.    Point No.1:- The complainant availed loan, by executing an agreement, with opposite party Nos.1 and 2 and agreed to repay the amount in 48 EMI’s.  Till 22.02.2013, the EMI amount was paid.  The vehicle met with an accident on 20.07.2012 and the same was left with opposite party No.3 for repairs, which took more than one year and two months.  Opposite party No.3 realised the insurance amount from opposite party No.4 on 05.10.2013 and further demanded for a sum of `67,000/-.  The opposite party Nos.1 to 3 have sold the said vehicle to some other person on 17.10.2013, without any intimation to the complainant.  Thereby the complainant suffered loss to the tune of `3,00,000/- and alleged the deficiency in service by opposite party Nos.1 to 3 and sought for the reliefs.
10. The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 submits, the complainant was failed to repay the loan amount as agreed.  The complainant did heed to the demands, as such repossessed the vehicle on 18.09.2013.  A pre-sale notice was issued to complainant on 19.09.2013, to repay the arrears within 7 days.  The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 surveyor assessed the value of the vehicle at `2,60,000/-, the vehicle was put to auction and realised `1,63,000/-.  The sale proceeds adjusted towards the loan account, even then, there was a loss of `3,71,260/-.  The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have initiated the arbitration proceedings to recover the dues, which is pending for consideration.  As such, there is no deficiency in service and not liable for payment of any compensation to the complainant.
11. The opposite party No.3, admitted the vehicle was left for repairs on payment of initial deposit of `5,000/- on 14.08.2012 and denied the allegation of inordinate delay in repairing the vehicle.  It is alleged that, even after intimation the complainant did not come forward to pay the repair charges for collected the vehicle.  It is also admitted the receipt of the insurance amount from opposite party No.4 towards repair charges, with reference to the letter dated 04.09.2013 by opposite party Nos.1 and 2, the said vehicle has been handed over to opposite party Nos.1 and 2, on submission of a indemnity bond and to pay the repair charges.
12. Opposite party No.4 submits, as there are no allegation against it, the complaint against it, is liable to be dismissed.  The complainant had taken a policy in respect of the vehicle, which met with an accident and suffered damages.  The surveyor assessed the loss at `1,90,907/- and the same was settled in favour of opposite party No.3.  It is alleged that the complainant had filed the complaint to make unlawful gain.  As such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
13. On perusal of the material on record, the complainant had agreed to repay the loan amount in 48 EMIs.  Commencing from 05.05.2012 to 05.04.2016.  The complainant had paid EMI amount till 22.02.2013.  The vehicle met with accident on 20.07.2012 and suffered damages.  The vehicle was left with opposite party No.3 for repairs.  There was no inordinate delay in repairing the vehicle.  The complainant did not come forward to pay the repair charges and to get the vehicle released from opposite party No.3.  The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 surveyor, assessed the value of the vehicle and in order to recover the dues, put the vehicle in auction, duly intimating the same to the complainant.  The complainant fail to pay the arrears and to get release the vehicle.  As such, in order to recover the dues the opposite party No.1 and 2 have sold the vehicle.  Still there was loss to the tune of `3,71,260/- to opposite party Nos.1 and 2.  As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.  Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in the negative.
14. Point No.2:- In view of the above observations, we proceed to pass the following

:: O R D E R ::

1. The complaint is hereby dismissed.
2. Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, transcript corrected by us and then pronounced in open court on this the 4^th March 2016)

                          (H.M.SHIVAKUMARA SWAMY) 

                                      PRESIDENT     

(M.V.BHARATHI)                           (DEVAKUMAR.M.C.)

      MEMBER                                         MEMBER