Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/396/2018

Parnav Garg - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tata Motors - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

04 Mar 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/396/2018
Date of Institution	:	14/08/2018
Date of Decision	:	04/03/2020

 

Parnav Garg s/o Sh. Vijay Kumar Garg, Near HDFC Bank, Water Works Road, MANSA (Punjab)-151505.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. The Tata Motors Ltd., SCO No.364-65-66, 2^nd Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh 160022.
2. Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh 160017.
3. The Registration and the Licensing Authority, Chandigarh 160017.
4. The Hind Motors (India) Ltd., 9 Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh 160002 through Sh. Ashish Mohan Gupta, Managing Director (residing with his family).

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                               

 

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Vijay Kumar Garg, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Shivam Grover, Counsel for OP-1
	:	Sh. K.S. Arya, Counsel for OP-2
	:	Sh. Shri Ram, Govt. Pleader for OP-3

Per Rattan Singh Thakur, President

1.      The averments are, complainant in the year 2009 had purchased an Indigo CS car from the dealer/OP-4, manufactured by OP-1, and got the same registered with OP-3 as CH04-J-4973. The case is, vehicle was purchased on direct payment by him to OP-4. The vehicle was not financed from any financial institution or say OP-2. OP-4 wrongly in the form filled showed the vehicle financed by branch of OP-2 and OP-3 had mentioned in the RC vehicle hypothecated with OP-2. It was not a visible entry, but, while in the year 2017 he intended to sell off the vehicle the purchaser told him of it being financed by the SBI, Chandigarh which was wrong entry. Thereafter, the matter was taken up with OPs 1 to 3, but, they did not sort out the problem of the complainant as a result thereof he could not sell off his vehicle as entry of hypothecation with the SBI is still subsisting on the RC. Hence, complainant filed the present consumer complaint and prayed for direction to the OPs to delete the said entry and direct OPs 1 & 2 to issue no demand certificate alongwith compensation and costs of litigation
2.     OP-1 filed its written reply and, inter alia, raised preliminary objections of consumer complaint being not maintainable and having no cause of action. Maintained, it is simply the manufacturer and the vehicle was purchased from OP-4 and the consumer complaint being time barred.  On these lines, cause is sought to be defended.
3.     OP-2 furnished separate reply claiming no such loan was advanced by SBI at Chandigarh in the year 2009 for the purpose of purchase of the vehicle in question by the complainant and the same was not hypothecated with the SBI. Maintained, complainant is not its consumer and the matter, if any, is inter se complainant and remaining OPs and not with it. Averred no loan was taken by the complainant from the SBI Chandigarh.
4.     OP-3 furnished its separate written reply and claimed in Form No.34, complainant himself mentioned the vehicle financed by SBI and the form also bore the stamp of SBI and signature of the financer alongwith that of the complainant.  Hence, OP-3 was not at fault and the entry was not deleted on his prayer.
5.     Notice was issued to OP-4 and in response Sh.Vikas Kuthiala, Advocate put in appearance and claimed OP-4 is under liquidation and prayed liquidator may be made as a party.  Later on, none appeared on behalf of OP-4 on the subsequent dates, which mean it did not opt to contest the consumer complaint.
6.     Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
7.     We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case. After scanning of record, our findings are as under:-
8.     Per pleadings of the parties and admitted facts, complainant happened to be owner of the vehicle in question bearing registration No.CH04-J-4973. It is also the admitted case of the complainant as well as alleged financier SBI/OP-2, it never advanced any loan to the complainant for the purchase of the vehicle in question and, therefore, he is not their loan account holder and as such not their consumer. OP-2 furnished the reply on behalf of all the branches at Chandigarh as he happened to be the Chief General Manager of SBI local head office, Sector 17A, Chandigarh. Hence, it is the admitted case, complainant never raised loan from the SBI.
9.     Now we shall refer to the photocopy of the sale letter (Exhibit 10) issued by OP-4 which shows this vehicle was sold by it i.e. dealer of OP-1/manufacturer to the complainant and reference was made vehicle being hypothecated with the State Bank of India. No branch name whatsoever referred in the said sale letter to say from which branch of SBI, Chandigarh complainant had raised loan.
10.     We shall refer here, even in Form No.34 copy of which is Exhibit 8, reference was made by the complainant the vehicle was purchased and hypothecated with SBI. It is not mentioned which branch of SBI had financed the loan to him.  Even otherwise, there is a stamp/seal of the State Bank of India without mentioning branch name and code and somebody had put in initial on it.  It is the case of the complainant dealer/OP-4 had filled in the said forms and RC was also facilitated to be taken by it from OP-3 on such forms. There is a vague reference including that in the sale letter and this fact was clarified with the reply of OP-2 i.e. Chief Manager of SBI being head of all the branches of the SBI at Chandigarh that no such loan was raised by the complainant from them and the vehicle was not financed by them.
11.     Hence, palpably it shows and manifestly makes clear this hypothecation entry figuring in the RC of the vehicle is fake one as it is not hypothecated one. How it happened is not clear though the complainant stated he had not made such mention. May be a fact, some advance signatures were taken by OP-4 in promotion of the business i.e. of raising loan through them and the form of somebody was used or may be for other reasons. But, whatsoever may be the reasons, this fact is clear vehicle was not hypothecated with the SBI and averred the complainant or say the dealer i.e. OP-4 had made a mistake by making reference of financier as SBI. Mistake is a mistake and error cannot be allowed to subsist. It needs to be corrected and complainant had paid registration fee to OP-3 while getting the vehicle registered and, therefore, he is a consumer of OP-3. There is no necessity to take no due certificate from OP-2 as it had categorically submitted reply before this Forum the complainant had never raised loan from SBI with regard to the purchase of the vehicle in question.
12.     Even it is argued by the complainant this entry was in small letter which was not visible therefore, he could not take note of the same during the span of around 8 years and this fact was discovered only when the said vehicle was intended to be sold to the purchaser when this entry in small letter was noticed and got verified from the office of OP-3. It is so made out from Exhibit 2 i.e. photocopy of the RC. Hence, the period of limitation is to be reckoned from the date of knowledge which had come to his notice in the year 2017 and the consumer complaint was filed in the year 2018 i.e. to say well within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and prior to the filing of the consumer complaint correspondence was also exchanged between the complainant and all the OPs, but, his grievance was not redressed.
13.     OP-4 did not contest the consumer complaint, therefore, the facts averred in the consumer complaint are corroborated in the absence of any rebuttal from the side of OP-4 as it did not have any answer to furnish. May be a fact, the company/OP-4 is under liquidation. No financial liability to be discharged by OP-4 to complainant and hence consumer complaint could be proceeded in absence of OP-4. 
14.     In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed qua OP-3. OP-3 is directed to immediately remove the hypothecation entry from the registration certificate (RC) of the vehicle in question and issue the revised registration certificate on receipt of requisite fee from complainant, if any, within a period of two months from the date of this order.  However,   in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we decline to award any compensation or cost of litigation to the complainant as he was also a little bit negligent.
15.     Since no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice has been proved qua OPs 1, 2 & 4, therefore, the consumer complaint qua them stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
16.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
04/03/2020	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
hg	Member	Member	President