Agnall Traders Ltd vs R K Aneja

THIS Appeal by M/s. Agnail Traders Ltd., second opposite party before the State Commission is directed against the order dated 21.7.93 of the State Commission, Delhi directing opposite parties namely City Bank, opposite party No. 1 and M/s. Agnail Traders Ltd. to pay the amount of Rs. 1,52,594/ - with interest at the rate of 17% per annum from the date of the complaint till the date of payment besides costs.

SINCE Citibank had not filed any appeal, we will notice bare facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal. The complainant purchased a Maruti Delux Car from the Appellant on 4.9.89 by availing of loan from Citibank. The Appellant recovered Rs. 41,234/ - from the complainant and another sum of Rs. 99,000/ - was received by way of loan advice i.e. in all Rs. 1,40,234/ -. According to the complainant he paid a sum of Rs. 43,804/ - direct to the Appellant in addition to the amount of Rs. 1,01,876/ - given by the Citibank to them. The Appellants case is that the invoice price of the car on 4.8.89 was Rs. 1,35,865/ - besides Insurance Premium of Rs. 4,109/ - and Rs. 260/ - towards registration and other charges and that was the total amount recovered by them against delivery of the car on 4.9.89 to the complainant and thus there is neither any deficiency in service on the part of the Appellant nor there is any defect in the car supplied nor any defect is alleged in the complaint. Citibank had informed the complainant in the letter dated 19.8.89 that Citi bank had sanctioned the loan and disbursed a sum of Rs. 1,01,876/ - to the Appellant repayable by 36 equated monthly instalment of Rs. 3,696/ -. The Citibank received 36 postdated cheques from the complainant. As the complainant defaulted in the payment of instalments as some cheques were dishonoured, certain disputes arose between the Citibank and the complainant over the loan transaction and Citibank ultimately seized the car. The complainant filed a complaint questioning the accounts and adjustment of the loan transaction, unfair trade practice of the Citibank, harassment of the complainant by the Citibank with ulterior motives of extracting money and the illegal act of seizing the vehicle. The prayer made in the complaint is : ''In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, it is most humbly prayed that this Honble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this Complaint and pass an Order : - (i) directing the respondent No. 1 to release the Maruti (Delux) Car No. DNH -1361 to the petitioner; (ii) directing the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 926.20 alongwith interest @ 11% p.a. collected by the respondents in excess of the loan amount; (iii) directing the respondents to pay the Petitioner such compensation as this Honble Court deems fit and proper for the loss and damages suffered by him; and (iv) may pass any other order and such further orders which this Honble Court may deem f it and proper in the circumstances of this case.''

During the pendency of the complaint the car was sold by the Citibank and the prayer clause was amended with the leave of State Commission to the following effect :

''(i) (a) or alternatively pay to the complainant Rs. 2 lacs and 5 thousand, cost of the car with accessories as per inventory, if the respondent No. 1 is not in a position to restore the car in the same condition.'' The State Commission accepted the complaint with costs and direct both the opposite parties to pay the amount of Rs. 1,52,594/ - with interest at the rate of 17% per annum from the date of the complaint i.e. 2.6.92 till the date of payment within three months to the complainant besides granting costs of Rs. 3,000/ -.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is evident that the State Commissions findings against the Appellant are contrary to the documentary evidence placed on the record. The photo copy of the invoice placed on record both by the Appellant and the complainant show the price of the car at Rs. 1,35,865/ -. The photo copies of two receipts dated 5.8.89 and 21.8.89 issued by the Appellant to the complainant have also been filed by the Appellant as well as by the complainant. The receipt dated 5.8.89 is for Rs. 37,164/ - paid by the complainant to the Appellant by Pay Order No. 001553 dated 4.8.89 drawn on Central Bank of India. The receipt dated 21.8.89 is for Rs. 99,000/ - received by the Appellant by advice dated 19.8.89 from the Citibank in loan account of the complainant. The photo copy of statement of account of the Current Account No. 70018004 Delhi of the complainant with the Citibank is also on record which records an increase of Rs. 99,000/ - and decrease of Rs.. 99,000/ - on 19.8.89 towards auto loan advice. It is manifest that the amount received by the Appellant is Rs. 99,000/ - and not Rs. 1,01,876/ - besides the admitted amount of Rs. 37,164/ - of 5.8.89. The next question of fact to be considered is as to who paid the insurance premium for the car. The photo copy of the Cover Note No. 815250, the certificate of insurance for car (DNH 1361) has also been filed both by the Appellant as well as the complainant. The effective date of commencement of Insurance for the purpose of the Act is 5.8.89 with the date of expirty as 4.8.90. The premium calculated is Rs. 4,109/ - and it is mentioned that the premium is received on 5.8.89. The Appellant has filed alongwith the appeal a certificate from the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. dated 23.8.93 certifying that payment for Motor Insurance Cover Note No. 815250 dated 5.8.89 for Rs. 4,109/ - in the name of Shri R.K. Aneja (the complainant) was made by M /s. Agnail Traders Ltd. in a consolidated cheque. If the amount of insurance premium had been paid by the complainant on 5.8.89, then there is no explanation as to why the complainant paid Rs. 4,070/ - on 4.9.89 as this amount represents the balance of the cost of Insurance and registration charges of Rs. 260/ -. The complainant has not produced any receipt of the alleged payment of premium of Rs. 4,109/ - in cash on 5.8.89 from the said Insurance Co. The inference is irresistible that the premium amount was paid by the Appellant and not the complainant. The alleged payment of Rs. 1850/ - on

8.89 AS the receipt shows, wAS made to ''Agnail Holdings Pvt. Ltd.'' a separate legal entity and not to the Appellant and it is not in payment towards the price of car but some other services. The conclusion is that no excess payment wAS made by the complainant to the appellant. The complainant is not a consumer qua the Appellant AS no defects in the goods are alleged and there is no deficiency in service. 4. The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 21.7.93 in so far AS it is against the Appellant is set ASide and the compliant against the Appellant is dismissed. The Appellant is awarded costs of this appeal against the complainant ASsessed at Rs. 1,000/ -. Appeal allowed.