Kerala

Idukki

CC/62/2018

Geetha Sahadeevan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Popular Vehicles Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Adv.Joseph Pathalil

30 Jun 2020

ORDER

DATE OF FILING : 26/03/2018

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 30^th day of June 2020

Present :

SMT.ASAMOL P. PRESIDENT IN CHARGE

SRI.AMPADY K.S. MEMBER

CC NO. 62/2018

Between

Complainant : Geetha, W/o Sahadevan,

11/30 Thayil, Punchirikavala,

Kochuthovala P.O., Kattappana Village,

Idukki District.

(By Adv: Joseph Pathalil)

And

Opposite Party : 1 . Popular Vehicles Pvt.Ltd.,

Kattappana Branch,

Kattappana P.O., Idukki District.

2 . Popular Vehicles & Services Ltd.,

Opposite to Medicity Mamangalam,

Cochin – 682 025.

(Both by Adv.K.M.Sanu)

3 . The HDFC Bank Ltd.,

Represented by the Manager 3^rd Floor,

SL Plaza, Palarivattom, Cochin – 25.

 

O R D E R

 

SMT. ASAMOL P. (PRESIDENT -IN -CHARGE)

 

The case of the complainant is that,

 

The complainant approached the first opposite party for purchasing a used car. The first opposite party offered a Maruthi Alto K10/LX1 new No.KL.17.J.2475 car. The total price of the car was fixed as Rs.2,45,000/- including tax, charges and expenses. The complainant told the sales executive Sri.Nixon that she can give Rs.1,00,000/- as ready cash and she can arrange a bank loan for a balance payment. Then the first opposite party told that they would arrange a loan by

(Cont....2)

-2-

themselves for interest @ 9% per annum. The complainant agreed the suggestion. Thus on 21/02/2017, the complainant paid Rs.15,000/- to the first opposite party office at Kattappana and on 21/03/2017, the complainant also paid Rs.88,500/- to the first opposite party's office at Kattappana and received the vehicle. The vehicle was delivered to the complainant by Sri.Nixon, the sales executive of popular vehicles and services. The first and second opposite party arranged loan from the third opposite party. The loan amount was Rs.1,45,000/- out of it, Rs.1,41,500/- was paid to the first and second opposite parties and Rs.3500/- was taken by the HDFC as service charges. No chart was given to the complainant by the bank showing mode of payment and EMI. On 30/04/2017, the complainant received a message stating that the loan amount is Rs.1,63,950/- and the monthly installment is Rs.3,836/- per month. Immediately the complainant contacted the first opposite party and they told that it would be a mistake and it would be corrected in consultation with the bank authorities. But the third opposite party began to collect Rs.3,836/- from the bank account of the complainant every month. The complainant insisted for the chart and finally on 06/11/2017 the chart was given to the complainant. Moreover the bank account shows that extra charges was taken from the complainant for arrears. Hence charging extra amount is a defective service on the part of the third opposite party. At the time of delivery of vehicle the first and second opposite parties assured to arrange the relevant documents, but they failed to do so. In the meantime the vehicle delivered by opposite parties to the complainant met with an accident. The complainant paid Rs.32,000/- for the repair of the vehicle by herself. Neither the insurance company nor the opposite parties compensated the loss sustained by the complainant. The opposite parties are liable to give the amount to the complainant. Thus the total amount of Rs.32,600/- is to be paid by the first and second opposite parties with 12% interest.

 

The loan amount was only Rs.1,45,000/-. The rate of interest assured was 9% by the opposite parties. But when the chart was given it is seen recorded as 14.25% interest which is excessive against the assurance given by the first opposite party. The interest charged on the amount Rs.1,63,950/- moreover 14.25% interest is charged on Rs.18,950/- which amount is never sanctioned or paid to the complainant.

 

(Cont....3)

-3-

The first and second opposite parties did not give insurance certificate in the name of the complainant which is defective service. So they are liable to give Rs.32,600/- as damages for the vehicle to the complainant. The third opposite party charged excess interest for the vehicle loan. They paid only Rs.1,45,000/- as loan to the complainant. Hence these acts of opposite parties are deficiency in service on their part. Hence the following reliefs are claimed.

 

1 ) The first and second opposite parties may be directed to pay Rs.32,000/- with

12% interest.

2 ) The third opposite party may be directed to fix the loan amount as

Rs.1,45,000/- and adjust the installment accordingly and return all the excess

amount recovered from the complainant illegally.

3 ) The opposite parties may be directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and

Rs.10,000/- as cost to the complainant.

 

Notice served to opposite parties from the Forum. All opposite parties entered for appearance. They filed written version.

 

From the version of the first and second opposite parties, they submitted that this Forum lacks territorial Jurisdiction to entertain this complaint because the office of the second and third opposite parties are at Ernakulam and beyond the territorial Jurisdiction of this Forum and the first opposite party has nothing to do with the true value car sale. Hence this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.

 

Further they contented that the complainant has approached the first opposite party for the purchase of a used car. It is absolutely false. The complainant approached the second opposite party for purchasing a used car. They also submitted that they have no arrangement with the third opposite party for the vehicle loan of Rs.1,45,000/- to the complainant.

 

Further they submitted that it is a fact that out of Rs.1,45,000/- the loan amount Rs.3,500/- was realized by the third opposite party as service charges, therefore they received only Rs.1,41,500/- as vehicle loan from the third opposite party on the account of the complainant. The first and second opposite parties

(Cont....4)

-4-

have no knowledge about the loan amount is Rs.1,63,950/-. As per the ledger account the vehicle loan amount received from third opposite party in the account of the complainant is only Rs.1,41,500/-. The tenor of re-payment and EMI amount to be paid by the complainant is an arrangement between the complainant and the third opposite party on the basis of loan agreement.

 

Further they averred that at the time of delivery of the vehicle, all the vehicle documents the insurance paper, pollution under control certificate, tax token and other related documents were given to the complainant. Whereas the second opposite party has submitted the original RC book for changing the name of the owner to RTO Idukki. From the RTO Idukki this RC book was directly send to the complainant under registered post and complainant is in the possession of RC book. The allegation that the complainant was not given the insurance certificate is absolutely false and hence denied. As per the delivery check list dated 03/03/2017 the receipt of True value certificate, valid insurance certificate, owners manual etc are acknowledged by the complainant affixing her signature, the original delivery check list signed by the complainant is produced. The complainant received the original RC book under registered post much before the accident date ie, 03/05/2017. Hence these opposite parties are not liable to pay Rs.32,600/- to the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of these opposite parties. Hence the complaint may be dismissed against these opposite parties. R1 and R2 produced may be marked.

 

From the version of third opposite party, it is submitted that the complainant herself contacted the bank and availed a loan for Rs.1,63,950/- for purchase of a used car Maruthi Alto K10 bearing Reg. No.KL-17-J-2475 and was agreed the EMI Rs.3,836/-. As per this the third opposite party had collected Rs.3,836/- per month as EMI amount payable by the complainant. Contention that bank had collected extra charge is not correct. This opposite party had collected the amount which is legally due as per the loan agreement. It is also submitted that the loan availed was for Rs.1,63,950/- and the agreed rate of interest was 14.25%. The cheque bouncing charges are levied, as the repayment made by the complainant had been defaulted. The levying of charges are in accordance with the agreed terms and there is no deficiency in service from the

 

(Cont....5)

-5-

part of this opposite party as alleged. Hence the complaint may be dismissed with cost. 4 documents produced and may be marked.

 

The complainant adduced evidence by filed proof affidavit and produced documents. The complainant was examined as PW1. The documents were marked as Ext.P1 to Ext.P6 respectively. Ext.P1 is pre-owned car booking/ commitment checklist from Popular Vehicles and Services Ltd., dated 21/02/2017, Ext.P2 is Auto loan letter dated 03/03/2017 from HDFC Bank, Palarivattom, Kochin to Popular Vehicles and Services, Mamangalam, P3 is cash receipt dated 03/05/2017 from Indus Motor Co.Pvt. Ltd., P4 is cash receipt dated 19/05/2017 from Indus Motors Co.Pvt. Ltd., P5 is account details of the complainant of SBT, Kattappana Branch and P6 is statement of loan account from HDFC Bank, Kattappana Branch.

 

The opposite parties also adduced evidence by way of proof affidavit and produced documents. The first and second opposite parties have produced R1 and R2. R1 is vehicle registration process and undertaking and R2 is Delivery check list which were marked as Ext.R1 and Ext.R2 respectively. DW1 was examined.

 

The third opposite party produced R3 to R6. R3 is Resolution Passed by the Board of Directors of HDFC Bank, R4 is copy of loan agreement (Objected by complainant), R5 is the statement of account, R6 is order form of match point GPS dated 21/03/2017 (Objected by complainant). DW2 was examined. Further the third opposite party produced R7 and R8. R7 is original of loan agreement and R8 is Tax invoice dated 30/06/17 from Track Point GPS Pvt. Ltd.,. These documents were marked as Ext.R3 to Ext.R8 respectively.

 

Heard both sides.

 

The points that arose for consideration is whether this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint, whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?

 

(Cont....6)

-6-

The point:-We have heard the learned counsels for both parties and have gone through the records on evidence. It is admitted that the complainant had purchased a used car Maruthi Alto K10 for Rs.2,45,000/- from opposite parties 1 and 2. Ext.P1 is the customer copy of pre-owned car booking/ commitment checklist dated 21/02/2017 from Popular Vehicles, Mamangalam, Kochin. It is mentioned in this Ext.P1 document that in the place of booking number is 'Nixon'. The complainant has deposed that Mr.Nixon is the sales executive of the first and second opposite parties. The complainant averred that the vehicle was delivered by the said 'Nixon' at Kattappana. In Ext.R1 vehicle registration process and undertaking produced by the first and second opposite parties is mentioned that the place is as 'Kattappana' and it is the dealer copy of the second opposite party. It means that the transactions between the complainant and opposite parties 1 and 2 were at Kattappana ie, the office of the first opposite party. We are of the opinion that first opposite party is the dealer of the second opposite party and Mr.Nixon is the sales executive of these opposite parties. As the transactions between the complainant and these opposite parties were at Kattappana the jurisdiction of this complaint is within the territory of this Forum. Hence this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.

 

Secondly, we are considered that when the complainant received the vehicle from the first and second opposite parties. She had signed the Ext.R2 document. Ext.R2 is the delivery check list from the second opposite party. It is also a dealer copy. The learned counsel for the complainant argued that at the time of delivery of the vehicle these opposite parties had promised to the complainant that they will definitely arrange the new insurance in the name of the complainant. As per this document the complainant acknowledged the documents such as the owner's manual true value certificate, photocopy of original RC, Valid insurance/cover note: in case of new insurance etc., but they had given only the old insurance in the name of one Denny George. She deposed that didn't receive the valid insurance in the name of her from these opposite parties. We are of the considered view that as per this Ext.R2 document, these opposite parties are liable to give valid insurance certificate in the name of the complainant. But these opposite parties have submitted in their version that changing of the name in the insurance certificate was the bounden duty of the complainant. It means that they didn't gave the valid insurance certificate in the

(Cont....7)

 

-7-

 

name of the complainant. If opposite parties 1 and 2 were given valid insurance certificate in the name of the complainant, she would get the claim amount from Insurance Company. But the first and second opposite parties had no taken any steps to give valid insurance certificate in the name of the complainant. We are of the considered view that the complainant has right to get the valid insurance ie, new insurance in the name of the complainant from the first and second opposite parties. Hence there is a deficiency in service on the part of these opposite parties.

 

The complainant has produced Ext.P3 and Ext.P4. These are cash receipts from Indus Motor Co.Pvt Ltd., dated 03/05/2017 and 19/05/2017 respectively. As per these documents, complainant has paid Rs.32,600/- to them for repair of the vehicle No.KL.17.J.2475 objections had raised about these documents by the first and second opposite parties. If the insurance certificate would be in the name of he complainant, the company would compensate the loss sustained by the complainant. Therefore the first and second opposite parties are liable to pay the repair cost of the vehicle Rs.32,600/- to the complainant.

 

Thirdly, we are considered that allegation against the third opposite party. The complainant has produced Ext.P2. It is the loan sanction letter of complainant from HDFC bank, S.L.Plaza, Palarivattom, Kochin-24 to Popular Vehilces & Services, Mmangalam, Kochin. It was not objected for marking by any of the opposite parties. As per this document loan sanctioned amount is only 1,45,000/- and disbursal amount is 1,41,500/-. in the written version of the first and second opposite parties, it is submitted that the second opposite party received the amount of Rs.1,41,500/- from the account of the complainant and also submitted that it is a fact that out of Rs.1,45,000/- the loan amount Rs.3,500/- was realized by the third opposite party as service charges, therefore the second opposite party has received only Rs.1,41,500/- as vehicle loan from the account of the complainant. As per this submission, we regarded that the loan amount was only Rs.1,45,000/- and also it is proved by Ext.P2 document.

 

(Cont....8)

 

-8-

The third opposite party has produced Ext.R3 to Ext.R8. Ext.R5 is the statement period from 28/02/2017 to 12/02/2019 of the complainant's account in Kattappana branch of HDFC bank. As per this document, amount financed is 1,63,950/-. The third opposite party submitted in their version is that the complainant availed a loan of Rs.1,63,950/- for purchase of a used car Maruthi Alto K10 bearing Registration No.KL-17-J-2475 regarding Ext.R6, it is the order form dated 21/03/2017 from match point GPS. It is objected by the complainant. The complainant's counsel argued that the affixed signature in this Ext.R6 is not of the complainant and she has not signed this document. DW2 deposed that he doesn't know that the loan application of the complainant is including GPS. The third opposite party has produced Ext.R7. It is the original of loan agreement. Ext.R4 is the copy of loan agreement already produced, ie, marked as subject to proof. The learned counsel for the complainant argued that Ext.R4 is contrary to real facts and signature of the complainant was received by the bank before the filling of Ext.R4 document and therefore she didn't know about including the GPS and also the complainant didn't gave any consent to including GPS in the vehicle loan to any of the opposite parties.

 

We are of the considered view that actual loan amount is Rs.1,45,000/- because it was proved by Ext.P2 and also it is submitted in the version of the first and second opposite parties. We are not regarding the Ext.R4. As this document was marked as subject to proof, the third opposite party is legally bound to prove this document, but this opposite party has not adduce evidence to proof of the contents of Ext.R4 document. It is seen in this document that the agreement date is 31/03/2017. As per the Ext.R8 document, invoice date is 30/06/2017. It is seen that the amount of GPS is Rs.18,950/-. But in the Ext.R4 agreement, the amount of GPS was how calculated by the third opposite party, because the GPS invoice date 30/06/2017 is much after the date of Ext.R4 loan agreement. Therefore we cannot believe these documents produced by the third opposite party. Ext.R5 produced by the third opposite party. It is seen that the installment date started on 05/05/2017 and the first EMI Rs.3,836/- received on 06/05/2017. It means that the third opposite party had fixed the GPS amount by themselves before they received the invoice of GPS from the company. So, we are of the opinion that Ext.R8 is made between the third opposite party and GPS company for their advantages. As per the above circumstances we are believing that the

(Cont....9)

-9-

complainant did not give consent to the third opposite party for purchasing GPS from the company.

 

We are regarding the Ext.R5 produced by the third opposite party. The amount financed Rs.1,63,950/- and amount disbursed 1,41,500/- is mentioned in this Ext.R5 statement of account. But it is not mentioned about the GPS amount out of Rs.1,63,950/- the amount disbursed is only Rs.1,41,500/- and it is also not mentioned about the balance amount. As per the above circumstances we are considering that the loan amount is Rs1,45,000/- and the complainant is liable only to pay the loan amount Rs.1,45,000/- with interest. Hence this third opposite party is liable to fix the loan amount as Rs.1,45,000/- and as per this amount, it must calculate the EMI.

 

Hence the complaint allowed. The first and second opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.32,600/- to the complainant and the third opposite party is directed to fix the loan amount as Rs.1,45,000/- and adjust the installment accordingly and return all the excess amount recovered from the complainant.

 

The Forum also directs the opposite parties to pay Rs.6000/- as cost of the proceedings to the complainant, failing which this amount shall carry 12% interest from the date of default till its realization.

 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30^th day of June, 2020.

Sd/-

SMT. ASAMOL P., PRESIDENT -IN -CHARGE

Sd/-

SRI.AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Cont....10)

-10-

 

APPENDIX

 

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1 - Geetha Sahadevan

On the side of the Opposite Party :

DW1 - Shibukumar P.N.

DW2 – Shyam

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 - Pre-owned car booking/ commitment checklist from Popular Vehicles

and Services Ltd., dated 21/02/2017

Ext.P2 - Auto loan letter dated 03/03/2017 from HDFC Bank Palarivattom,

Kochin to Popular Vehicles and Services, Mamangalam

Ext.P3 - Cash receipt dated 03/05/2017 from Indus Motor Co.Pvt. Ltd.

Ext.P4 - Cash receipt dated 19/05/2017 from Indus Motors Co.Pvt. Ltd.

Ext.P5 - Account details of the complainant of SBT, Kattappana Branch

Ext.P6 - Statement of loan account from HDFC Bank, Kattappana Branch.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Ext.R1 -Vehicle registration process and undertaking

Ext.R2 - Delivery check list

Ext.R3 - Resolution Passed by the Board of Directors of HDFC Bank

Ext.R4 -Copy of loan agreement (Objected by complainant)

Ext.R5-The statement of account

Ext.R6-Order form of match point GPS dated 21/03/2017 (Objected by complainant).

Ext.R7 -Original of loan agreement

Ext.R8 is Tax invoice dated 30/06/17 from Track Point GPS Pvt. Ltd.

 

 

Forwarded by Order,

 

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

****************************