P.D. Bhatia vs BANK OF PUNJAB LIMITED

THIS appeal has been directed by the complainant against order dated 30.11.2006 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as District Consumer Forum) vide which his complaint was accepted with costs of Rs. 1,100 and he was awarded compensation of Rs. 5,000 . Respondent No. 2 [Hind Motors (India) Limited] was directed to pay the amount within 30 days, failing which it would carry interest @ 9% p.a. till actual payment.

BRIEFLY stated the facts are that appellant (complainant) Sh. P.S. Bhatia wanted to purchase Indica Car and for this purpose, he approached respondent No. 1 (Bank of Punjab Ltd.) for getting Indica car financed and accordingly it got signed all the relevant documents/papers concerning the financing of vehicle and in lieu of monthly instalment for repayment of loan amount also got duly filled post-dated cheques of equal amount from the appellant. It was next averred that as per financing conditions of respondent No. 1, he made initial down payment of 10% of the invoice cost of the car amounting to Rs. 35,000 and the balance amount was to be financed by respondent No. 1.

It was further averred that on 26.3.2004, respondent No. 1 along with appellant went to respondent No. 2 for delivery of the vehicle. Respondent No. 2 on receiving delivery order from respondent No. 1 and down payment of Rs. 35,000 from the appellant, delivered to him one Indica Diesel Car 1405 CC and temporary registration No. CH-01(T)-3830 valid for 30 days was also issued by respondent No. 2.

IT was next averred that respondent No. 2 did not deliver the documents of car including invoice and sale letter concerning the vehicle in question except temporary registration number on the pretext that it would release documents after obtaining the full payment from respondent No. 1. The appellant also got his vehicle insured from National Insurance Company by making payment of Rs. 12,760 at the time of delivery on 26.3.2004 and thereby completed basic requirements at his end. It was further averred that appellant after a few days approached respondent No. 2 for release of the original documents along with the copy of invoice to enable him to apply for permanent registration number but it refused to deliver the documents on the plea that it had not received the full amount from respondent No. 1. Consequently, he approached respondent No. 1 for release of payment to respondent No. 2 who assured that very shortly the required payment against the vehicle would be released but in spite of assurance, respondent No.1 failed to release the same. Due to non-release of documents, he could not utilize the vehicle. Alleging deficiency in service, the complaint was filed.

RESPONDENT No. 1 in its reply admitted the factual position and pleaded that it had agreed to finance an amount of Rs. 3,30,000 to be repaid by the appellant/complainant in 60 equated monthly instalments, one of which was to be paid in advance and remaining 59 through post-dated cheques. The advance EMI was not paid upfront but was paid at the counter and as such amount after deducting advance EMI, was remitted to OP No. 2 on 26.4.2004 by way of bankers cheque bearing No. 906244 for Rs. 3,23,664 and the vehicle was got delivered on 26.3.2004 and first instalment was deducted on 26.4.2004. Besides it, appellant had handed over 59 post-dated cheques as monthly instalments. It next stated that respondent No. 2 had no right to retain the papers after 26.4.2004 and all the dues due from respondent No. 1 had been released to respondent No. 2 on that date. It, however, stated that intention of appellant was not fair as post-dated cheques from September, 2004 onwards started being dishonoured. It also stated that if respondent No. 2 had any further grievance, then same could have been pointed out to it (respondent No. 1). It also stated that appellant had been repeatedly communicated and asked to make payment of the first instalment due which he had not paid and later on cheques from September, 2004 started being dishonoured. Respondent No. 2 in its reply stated that the appellant was still to pay Rs. 6,336 with interest @ 18% p.a. from 26.3.2004 till the date of realization of the amount and also interest amount of Rs. 5,350 on the delayed payment of Rs. 3,23,664 for a month''s period. It next stated that the car was sold for Rs. 3,65,840 on 26.3.2004 but the appellant and respondent No. 1 had paid a sum of Rs. 36,840 and further a sum of Rs. 3,23,664 was received on 27.4.2004 and as such balance amount of Rs. 6,336 had not been paid. It next stated that without any making payment of the outstanding balance amount, appellant had no right to claim documents.

PARTIES adduced their evidence by way of affidavits.

AFTER hearing Counsel for the parties, District Consumer Forum vide order dated 30.11.2006 accepted the complaint with costs of Rs. 1,100 and allowed compensation of Rs. 5,000 only. Aggrieved by the said order, complainant has filed the present appeal for enhancement of compensation.

We have heard Counsel for appellant Sh. J.P. Singh, Counsel for respondent No. 1 Sh. C.S. Pasricha, Counsel for respondent No. 2 Sh. Ranjnish Narula and carefully gone through the file.

THERE is no dispute about it that an amount of Rs. 3,23,664 was received by respondent No. 2 [Hind Motors (India) Ltd.] on 27.4.2004. It had further received a sum of Rs. 36,840 from appellant and respondent No. 1. The case of respondent No. 2 is that it had not delivered documents since respondent No. 1 or appellant had not paid Rs. 6,336 with interest of Rs. 5,350 on delayed payment of Rs. 3,23,664 for one month. The reply of respondent No. 1 is that respondent No. 2 never informed that some amount is due. If respondent No. 2 had informed respondent No. 1 about the amount due, then certainly respondent No. 1 had also made payment of that amount. Once the delivery of the vehicle had been made, then it was incumbent on the part of respondent No. 2 not to retain the documents including sale certificate and invoice, so as to deprive the appellant of the use of vehicle after getting it registered. Appellant could not use the vehicle in the absence of registration number because it is illegal to ply vehicle without registration number. Certainly respondent No. 2 had acted in a deficient manner. The appeal bearing No. 846 of 2006 filed by Hind Motors (India) Ltd. had been dismissed vide order dated 9.1.2007 by this Commission. The delivery of the car was given on 26.3.2004. About three years have passed after the delivery of the car and the appellant had not been able to use the car. No notice was given by respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 1 or appellant to make payment of the small amount. Thus, documents had been retained without reasonable cause or excuse. The loss suffered by the appellant is immense as the value of the car must have decreased and further the appellant must have suffered pain and agony. In such circumstances compensation awarded of Rs. 5,000 is very meagre. It is increased to Rs. 50,000.

ACCORDINGLY appeal is accepted with costs of Rs. 5000 and compensation awarded is increased to Rs. 50,000 instead of Rs. 5,000 . Copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. Appeal allowed.