MAGMA FINCORP LTD vs A Sakthivel S/O Ayyasamy

THE complainant and his principal Mr. A. Srinivasan purchased a bus from the respondent Megma Shrachi Finance for a consideration of Rs. 2,40,000/ - and took delivery of the said vehicle on 15.02.2007. According to the complainant at the time of purchase of the vehicle, he was informed by Megma Shrachi that the original invoice and the other papers would be given to him on 16.02.2007. But, the said documents including original invoice of the vehicle were not given, which resulted the complainant approaching the District Forum by way of a complaint, alleging deficiency in the service provided by the opposite party which included the petitioner Magma Fincorp. Ltd., (now Magma Finance Ltd.). The complaint was resisted by the petitioner Company, inter -alia, on the ground that the said vehicle was purchased for commercial purpose, a complaint before the consumer forum was not maintainable. They also denied any deficiency in the service rendered by them to the complainant.

THE District Forum vide its order dated 29.06.2010, directed the opposite parties no. 1 to 4 in the complaint which included the petitioner before this Commission to pay a sum of Rs. 2,40,000/ - to the complainant alongwith interest on that amount at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of payment. The District Forum also awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/ - towards compensation and Rs. 5,000/ - towards costs to the complainant.

BEING aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, opposite parties no. 2 to 4 in the complaint approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The State Commission having noticed that it was the opposite party no. 3, (petitioner) Magma Shraachi Finance, which had received the consideration of Rs. 2,40,000/ - from the complainant vide receipt Ex. A -1 and issued the letter, Ex. A -2 acknowledging receipt of the purchase price of the vehicle and thereafter delivering the vehicle in question to him on 15.02.2007, held that opposite parties no. 2 to 4 were bound to deliver the original invoice and the other papers to the buyer of the vehicle. The appeal filed by the petitioner and two other opposite parties were therefore dismissed. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission, the petitioner which was opposite party no. 3 before the State Commission is before us by way of this revision petition. A perusal of the letter dated 15.02.2007 issued by Shraachi Infrastructure Finance Ltd., which is the name by which the petitioner company was earlier known would show that it was the petitioner company which had sold the vehicle in question to the complainant, received the entire sale consideration and delivered the vehicle in good condition. It was promised in the aforesaid letter that the original invoice and other papers required for registration would be handed over to the buyer on 16.02.2007.

SINCE the petitioner company sold vehicle in question to the complainant, received the sale consideration from him and delivered the vehicle to him, it was under an obligation to deliver all the documents pertaining to the said vehicle including the original purchase invoice to the complainant, as was promised by it vide its letter dated 15.02.2007. If the petitioner company for one reason or the other, was not able to deliver the documents of the vehicle of which it had promised, it was under an obligation to refund the money which it had received from the complainant alongwith appropriate interest on that amount.

THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that initially vehicle in question was purchased by M/s. Natarajan Educational Trust, and the said purchase was financed by HDFC Bank. Since the purchaser of the vehicle could not repay the loan taken from the HDFC Bank, the vehicle was possessed by the petitioner on behalf of HDFC Bank and later sold to the complainant. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner Company was authorized by HDFC Bank to seize the vehicle and sell the same in order to realize the dues from the borrower who had initially purchased the vehicle and therefore the original documents of the vehicle continued to be in possession of the first purchaser namely M/s. Natarajan Educational Trust. His contention is that the petitioner company is not in a position to deliver the aforesaid documents to the complainant. In our opinion, the petitioner company ought to have taken the documents of the vehicle before putting the said vehicle on sale. Alternatively, it could have sold the vehicle on ''as is where is basis'', making it clear to the purchaser that it would not be possible for it to deliver the documents of the vehicle to him. That, however, was not done, as is obvious from the promise made in the letter dated 15.02.2007, whereby the petitioner expressly stated that original invoice and other papers required for registration would be handed over to the complainant on 16.02.2007. Thus, in the case before us, the petitioner company held out a specific promise to the complainant to deliver the requisite documents on 16.02.2007. Obviously, had such a promise not been made to him, the complainant would not have purchased the vehicle. Therefore, the petitioner Company was clearly deficient in rendering services to the complainant by not delivering the original invoice and other documents, required for registration of the vehicle in favour of the complainant.

FOR the reasons stated hereinabove, we find no merit in the revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed.