PARAMESWARI Vs. V S T SERVICE STATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises from the order dated 21.07.2005 of the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (hereafter, the State Commission ) in original petition no. 60 of 2002. By the said order, the State Commission dismissed the complaint of Parameswari in which she had alleged deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties/respondents. The grounds in the complaint were that she had purchased a motor vehicle from opposite party/respondent no. 1 by availing of loan financing from opposite party/respondent no. 2 under a Hire Purchase Agreement for which she had made an initial payment of Rs.1, 25,000/- out of the total cost of Rs.5, 19,000/-. The vehicle, which had been duly insured with respondent/opposite party no. 3, met with an accident on 30.04.2000 whereupon the appellant/complainant took the vehicle to opposite party/respondent no. 1 for necessary repairs. Though the vehicle was repaired, opposite party/respondent no.1 failed to hand over the vehicle to the complainant/appellant in spite of her requests and presentations. In the meanwhile, opposite party/respondent no.2 insisted on the complainant/appellant paying the due installments of the loan. On failure of respondent/opposite party no. 1 to hand over the repaired vehicle even after a visit to the service station of respondent/opposite party no. 1 on 02.03.2001, the complainant/appellant issued a legal notice to the opposite parties following which she filed the complaint in question. The opposite parties denied the allegations in the complaint and made several representations before the State Commission to show that there was no deficiency in service on the part of any of the opposite parties. On consideration of the matter, the State Commission passed the impugned order as already noticed.

(2.) We have heard Mr. Anil Kaushik, learned counsel on behalf of the appellant/complainant, Ms. Astha Tyagi, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 and Ms. Suman Bagga, learned counsel for respondent no. 3. None was, however, present on behalf of respondent no. 2, viz., Branch Manager, Tata Finance Ltd., Chennai at the time of final hearing of this appeal.

(3.) The main point argued by Mr. Kaushik, learned counsel for the appellant/complainant is that respondent/opposite party no. 1 handed over the repaired vehicle to respondent/opposite party no. 2 without any intimation to the appellant/complainant and respondent no. 2, in turn, sold the vehicle to a third party, without any prior notice/intimation to the appellant/complainant and appropriated the proceeds of the sale in partial settlement of the outstanding loan. Mr. Kaushik further argued that the appellant/complainant was unable to remit the due installments to respondent/opposite party no. 2 in time mainly because the vehicle, after it met with the accident, remained with respondent/opposite party no. 1 for a long time for repairs and that respondent no.1 failed to hand over the possession of the repaired vehicle to enable her to ply it for the purpose for which it was purchased. These actions on the part of respondents/opposite parties no. 1 and 2 amounted to deficiency in service of which the State Commission failed to take appropriate notice in passing the impugned order.