STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Complaint case No. : 94 of 2020

Date of Institution : 19.03.2020
Date of Decision : 22.12.2021
 

Bhagwant Singh Chadha aged 50 years s/o Sh.T.S. Chadha, SCF No.325, Motor Market, Manimajra, U.T., Chandigarh.

……Complainant

Versus
1. ICICI Bank, SCO No.129-130, Sector 9, U.T., Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.
2. P.Padmanaban, Zonal Head ICICI Bank, Mythree Centre No.4/10, Hosur Road, Beside Oxford Engineering and Dental College,
Bommanahalli, Bangalore.

…..Opposite parties

BEFORE:             JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT.

                             MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

                             MR.RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER.

Present through video conferencing:                

                             Sh.Rishabh Goel, Advocate for the complainant.

                             Er.Sandeep Suri, Advocate for the opposite parties.

                            

JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                   The facts in brief are that, on 30.04.2014, the complainant had purchased one second hand Jaguar Car bearing registration No.PY-
01-BJ-0063, Model 2011 (in short the vehicle), from the opposite parties, for an amount of Rs.25,25,000/-. It has been stated that the said
vehicle was a repossessed vehicle, as the original owner thereof i.e. Ripon K. Malhotra, failed to pay the installments to the opposite parties. At the
time of purchase of the said vehicle, it was committed by the opposite parties that the complainant will be provided original registration certificate
and other forms like forms no.29, 30 etc. which is required for transfer of ownership. It has been pleaded that thereafter, despite the fact that
number of requests were made by the complainant to the opposite parties starting from May 2014 till the date of filing this complaint, to provide
him necessary documents/forms, which are required for getting the transfer of registration certificate and also ownership rights but they miserably
failed to do so, as a result whereof, he is unable to use/ply the said vehicle. It has been stated that during the period intervening, except obtaining
signatures of the complainant, on number of preprinted undertakings and other documents and also asking him to land the vehicle in question at the
premises of the opposite parties at Panchkula, twice for inspection, no positive steps have been taken by the opposite parties, in the matter. It has
been further stated that thereafter, it came to the knowledge of the complainant that the opposite parties concealed the material fact with regard to
death of the original owner of the vehicle i.e. Mr.Ripon K. Malhotra on 29.06.2013 from the RTO concerned at the time of sale of the vehicle to
him on 30.04.2014. It has been averred that despite the fact that the Banking Ombudsman also, vide order dated 27.12.2019 directed the
opposite parties to provide registration certificate and transfer papers to the complainant, free of cost alongwith payment of compensation of
Rs.20,000/-, but they failed to do so. It has been pleaded that as on today, the vehicle is lying unused, as it cannot be plied in the absence of
registration certificate.   

2.           By stating that the aforesaid act of the opposite parties amounts to  deficiency in providing service and adoption of unfair trade
practice, the present complaint has been filed seeking refund of amount of Rs.25,25,000/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation
expenses. 
3.           The opposite parties in their joint written statement while taking numerous objections inter-alia stated as under:-
1. that this Commission did not vest with territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide this complaint;
 2. that this complaint is barred by limitation;
3. that this complaint is not maintainable before this Commission, proceedings before which are summary in nature;
4. that the opposite parties were only required to provide form 36 with necessary declarations/forms and were to help the complainant
to get the registration certificate processed;
5. that at the time of sale of the vehicle in question, it was made clear to the complainant that since the original RC is not with the
opposite parties, as such, he was required to arrange the  duplicate RC from RTO Pondicherry for which Form No.36 shall be issued
on his written request;
6. that it was never committed to the complainant that the opposite parties shall be responsible for the purpose of getting the vehicle
transferred and that undertakings in that regard were also given by him wherein he admitted to get it done at his risk and costs;
7. that the complainant was also provided the letter dated 31.05.2014 addressed to the RTO Pondicherry for getting the registration of
the vehicle transferred but he failed to take any steps in the matter;
8. that the delivery of vehicle in question was taken by the complainant without any demur or objection;
9. that the opposite parties have provided all assistance to the complainant and are still ready to assist him in getting the vehicle in
question transferred in his name, after adopting due procedure to which he committed by way of undertakings;
10. that when the opposite parties apprises RBI, BO, with true facts in the minutes of meeting dated 18.02.2020, it was pleased to close
the case with the remarks “Reach out to Complainant and resolve the issue”; and
11. that because the vehicle in question had been taken over by the opposite parties on account of default in payment by original owner
namely Mr.Ripon K. Malhotra and put to sale, which was purchased by the complainant on “as-is-where-is-basis” and that too in
an offline bid i.e. in an auction, in which he was the highest bidder, as such, this consumer complaint is not maintainable before this
Commission.
4.           On merits, the facts regarding purchase of the vehicle in question from the opposite parties, by the complainant, as stated by him in his
complaint and that no registration certificate in the name of the bank was issued to him at that time, have not been disputed by the opposite
parties. Prayer has been made to dismiss the complaint with exemplary cost.
5.           The contesting parties led evidence in support of their case. Written arguments were also filed by the complainant, which were taken
on record.
6.           We have heard the contesting parties at length and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, including the written
arguments filed by the complainant only, very carefully.
7.           The first question that falls for consideration is with regard to the objection taken regarding territorial jurisdiction of this Commission; it
may be stated here that it is settled law that even an infinitesimal fraction of a cause of action will be part of the cause of action and confer
jurisdiction on the Court/Tribunal/Fora within the territorial limits of which that occurs. In the present case, it is evident  that payment in
respect of the vehicle in question, through three cheques, Annexure C-1 was received by Chandigarh Branch of the opposite parties and it
has acknowledge the same by way of endorsing round stamp of the said Chandigarh Branch. This fact has been fairly admitted by the
opposite parties, in their joint written reply. Not only as above, it is also evident that offer letter dated 29.04.2014 (at page 52 of the paper
book), in respect of the vehicle in question written by the complainant was also received by Chandigarh Branch of the opposite parties i.e.
SCO No.129-130, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh. Even the declaration towards purchase of the vehicle in question was also received by the
opposite parties, from the complainant, at their Chandigarh Branch. The fact that almost all the documents pertaining to the vehicle in
question were submitted by the complainant at Chandigarh Branch of the opposite parties also stood admitted by them in their joint written
version, meaning thereby that the opposite parties were actually and voluntarily residing and carrying on their business and personally work
for gain at their Chandigarh Branch also, whereas numerous cause of action accrued in favour of the complainant, as referred to above.
Furthermore, even the case of the complainant was represented by the opposite parties themselves, before the Banking Ombudsman at
Chandigarh, wherein minutes of the meetings were held on 18.02.2020. In this view of the matter, it is held that this Commission at
Chandigarh has territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. 
8.            The fact that the vehicle in question was repossessed by the opposite parties from one Ripon K. Malhotra, who failed to pay monthly
installments in respect of the loan obtained against it, is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that before purchase of the vehicle in question,
from the opposite parties, assurance was given by opposite party no.2 to the complainant vide email dated 25.04.2014, Annexure C-3, that
the Bank will provide him Form 36 (Fresh RC in favour of ICICI Bank Ltd.), and also Forms 26, 29 and 30 with necessary  declarations,
in order to get the registration certificate and the vehicle in question transferred in his name.  Relevant part of the said email is reproduced
hereunder:-

“Friday, 25 April 2014, 01:16 pm IST

Dear Chadha

Good wishes,

As discussed and confirmed with you and your subsequent Telephonic offer for the Car PY 01BJ0063 for 25250000/-. This
is to confirm that the said quotation is accepted by us and you are advised to make the payment in full by eod. As
 discussed the vehicle is seized by RTO due to non Payment of Karnataka ROAD Tax by the original customer and hence
we have paid the TAX and fine of Rs.1185700/- copy of which along with RTO letter will be given to you.

As suggested by RTO we will be providing you Form 36 (Fresh RC in favor of ICICI Bank Ltd) with necessary
declarations using which you may get RC book processed in our favor and on production of the same You will be provided
Form 29 and 30 to name transfer in your favor which may take approximately a month time. Also check with RTO about
 Pondicherry RC book of the car which has been impounded by RTO while seizing this vehicle. In the absence of the same
you may arrange the DRC from Pondicherry for which Form 26 set will be provided to you on your written request within
reasonable retrieval time. PI speak to sunil of PD Integrated also if any further clarity is required.

We will send the photo picture of the date of arrival of the car into our Yard and scan copy of B Extract for your kind
perusal in separate mail.

Regards

R. Padmanaban

Zonal Head south Lead Team..”

9.           It is further evident from the record that it was only on the confirmation aforesaid, that the complainant gave his offer to opposite party
no.2, vide letter dated 29.04.2014 (at page 52 of the paper book), which is not in dispute by the opposite parties. Relevant contents of the
said letter are reproduced hereunder:-

“Dear Sir,

With Reference to telephonic conversation regarding Jaguar Car Registration No. PY01B0063, Model 2011 on as is where
is basis.

My offer for the above mentioned car is Rs-2525000 only (Twenty Five Lakhs Twenty Five thousand Only)

As discussed with Mr. R Pabmanaban, zonal Head south Lead Team, Bangalore. Your Bank will provide all document i.e.
form 26 and others document for getting DRC and NOC from Pondicherry. R.T.O. Your Bank will also provide Form 36
along with original tax receipt of RS 1185700/- issued by R.T.O. Yelahanka, Bangalore and with necessary declarations for
getting the car re-registered at Bangalore RTO in ICICI Bank's name. Then your bank will provide FORM No 29 and 30 &
other transfer documents for getting the Car transferred in my name at Bangalore RTO.

With Regards

Bhagwant Singh Chadha

S/o Sh T.S. Chadha …”

         

10.           Thus, it is clearly evident from the contents extracted above that the opposite parties, in a very candid manner, committed to the
complainant to provide him all the documents i.e. Form 26, Forms 29 and 30 & Form 36 along with original tax receipt of Rs.11,85,700/-
issued by the RTO Pondicherry,  for getting the car re-registered at Bangalore RTO in ICICI Bank's name and then in his own name.
11.           However, to wriggle out of the situation, Counsel for the opposite parties placed reliance on the letter of undertaking dated
29.05.2014 Annexure C-5A and also declaration (at page 43 of the paper book), to contend that the opposite parties never took
responsibility to get the registration certificate transferred in its favour or in the favour of the complainant, yet, on the other hand, he was the
 complainant who accepted vide the said undertaking and declaration, that he will get the necessary done himself at his risk and costs. We
have considered the contentions raised and are of the considered opinion that the same does not merit acceptance for the reasons to be
recorded hereinafter.

                   Admittedly, the vehicle in question had been repossessed by the opposite parities from one Ripon K. Malhotra, owing to the default in
making payment towards installment on the loan raised against it. Thus, before proceeding further, it is necessary to reproduce Rule 61 (2) of the
Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and Section  51 (5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as under:-

Rule 61 (2) of Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989:-

“..61. Termination of hire-purchase agreements, etc.—

(1) ……………..

(2) The application for the issue of a fresh certificate of registration under sub-section (5) of section 51 shall be made in Form 36
and shall be accompanied by a fee as specified in Rule 81.

(3) …………………..”

Section 51(5) of Act The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:-

“Section 51(5)

 Where the person whose name has been specified in the certificate of registration as the person with whom the registered
owner has entered into the said agreement, satisfies the registering authority that he has taken possession of the vehicle
from the registered owner owing to the default of the registered owner under the provisions of the said agreement and that
the registered owner refuses to deliver the certificate of registration or has absconded, such authority may, after giving the
registered owner an opportunity to make such representation as he may wish to make (by sending to him a notice by
registered post acknowledgment due at his address entered in the certificate of registration) and notwithstanding that the
certificate of registration is not produced before it, cancel the certificate and issue a fresh certificate of registration in the
name of the person with whom the registered owner has entered into the said agreement

Provided that a fresh certificate of registration shall not be issued in respect of a motor vehicle, unless such person pays
the prescribed fee:

Provided further that a fresh certificate of registration issued in respect of a motor vehicle, other than a transport vehicle,
shall be valid only for the remaining period for which the certificate cancelled under this sub-section would have been in
force.”

Bare perusal of the aforesaid Section 61 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 clearly goes to show that in the case of  termination of hire-
purchase agreements, etc. an application for the issue of a fresh certificate of registration under sub-section (5) of section 51 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 shall be made by the Financer in Form 36 and shall be accompanied by a fee as specified in rule 81. Simultaneously, as per
Section 51 (5) of the  Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Financer concerned is required to satisfy the registering authority i.e. R.T.O. that possession
of the vehicle has been taken from the registered owner,  owing to the default of the registered owner under the provisions of the agreement
executed between them and thereafter, the said Registering Authority will give an opportunity to the said person in default,  to make such
representation, as he may wish to make, by sending to him a notice by registered post acknowledgment. It was only after carrying out the above-
said exercise by the Registering Authority that it will cancel the certificate and issue a fresh certificate of registration in the name of the person with
whom the registered owner has entered into the said agreement.

12.           Thus, the aforesaid sections lay legal duty upon the opposite parties being the executor of agreement with Ripon K. Malhotra (original
owner of the vehicle), to move  necessary Form/application (Form No.36) termination of hire-purchase agreements, etc. by way of
moving an application for issuance of a fresh certificate of registration under sub-section (5) of section 51 and only after getting the
registration certificate transferred in its (Bank) favour, it could have sold the vehicle to any third party (in the present case to the 
complainant). However, there is nothing on record to prove that any such exercise, which was to be carried out by the opposite parties
under Sections, referred to above, was ever carried out by them, before effecting the sale of the vehicle in question to the complainant. 

                   However, we are of the considered view that in the present case, the opposite parties could not have even sold the vehicle to the
complainant, on 30.04.2014 because admittedly, Mr.Ripon K. Malhotra, expired on 29.06.2013, as is evident from his death certificate
no.689113 (at page 37 of the paper book). There is nothing on record that this fact was ever disclosed by the opposite parties, to the complainant,
before selling the vehicle to him on 30.04.2014. At this stage, it is necessary to reproduce Section 50 (2) (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
which provides the procedure to be carried out for transfer of ownership rights, in case of death of a person, in whose name a vehicle stands.
Relevant part of Section 50(2) (a) of the MV Act, is reproduced hereunder:-

“Section 50 (2) (a) of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

(2)  Where—

(a) the person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered dies, or

(b) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,

the person succeeding to the possession of the vehicle or, as the case may be, who has purchased or acquired the motor
vehicle, shall make an application for the purpose of transferring the ownership of the vehicle in his name, to the
registering authority in whose jurisdiction he has the residence or place of business where the vehicle is normally kept, as
the case may be, in such manner, accompanied with such fee, and within such period as may be prescribed by the Central
Government…..” 

Bare perusal of Section 50(2) (a)  of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988  clearly lays a duty upon the person succeeding to the possession of the vehicle
(in the present case the opposite parties), to make an application for the purpose of transferring the ownership of the vehicle in his name, to the
registering authority, in whose jurisdiction, he has the residence or place of business, where the vehicle is normally kept, as the case may be, in such
manner, accompanied with such fee, and within such period as may be prescribed by the Central Government. On this count also, there is nothing
on record to prove that any such exercise, which was to be carried out by the opposite parties under Section 50(2) (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, was ever carried out by them, before effecting the sale of the vehicle in question to the complainant. 

13.           In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that it was the opposite parties only and not the complainants, who were,
in the first instance, legally bound under law to get the registration of vehicle in question transferred in their favour and only thereafter, they
could have sold the same to any third party (in the present case the complainant). Thus, the opposite parties cannot wriggle out of the above
said exercise to be carried out under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, merely, by relying
upon some undertakings having been obtained from the complainant, on a pre-printed format and which too also reveal that they themselves
have committed to provide all the necessary documents for effecting transfer of registration certificate aforesaid. The opposite parties by
selling the vehicle in question, without getting the registration certificate in their favour, as a result whereof, the complainant could not get it
registered in his name, are negligent and deficient in providing service to him (complainant).
14.           Not only as above, even adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties is writ large, as they kept the
complainant in dark about the death of original owner of the vehicle in question  i.e. Mr.Ripon K. Malhotra from whom it was repossessed.
On the other hand, despite the fact that Mr.Ripon K. Malhotra had died on 29.06.2013, yet, they (opposite parties) kept on saying the
complainant even by November 2015 that  the RTO concerned is going to send notices under Form 37 to Borrower i.e. Ripon K. Malhotra
as well the Bank, which is the cause of delay in transfer of the vehicle in question. This bald and false statement was given by the opposite
parties to the complainant in writing vide email dated 03.11.2015, Annexure C-12, relevant part of which is reproduced hereunder:-  

“….From: Shreya Khithani senior.management@icicibank.com

To: sunnychadha69@yahoo.com <sunnychadha60@YAHOO.COM> Date: Tuesday, 3 November 2015. 3:01 PM +0530

Subject: RE:ICICICARE 012-510-305 ICICI Bank Ltd

Dear Mr. Chadha,

We refer to your e-mail dated October 28, 2015 addressed to Ms Chanda Kochhar

At the outset, we sincerely apologize for the inconvenience caused to you.

  

We understand that our official Mr. Godi  B is regularly interacting with you regarding the concerns raised by you. As per
your e-mail dated November 2, 2015, we understand that you are ready to park the vehicle in our Panchkula godown
subject to certain conditions as informed by you in your e-mail dated November 2, 2015. We will update you with the
status by November 10, 2015.

We request you to contact our official, Mr. Godi B on his mobile number 80089999536 for any further queries.

As per our findings, there is a problem with Pondicherry RTO not transferring the vehicle in the name of the buyer. Earlier
an application was made through issuance of form 36 which was incorrect and also misplaced in RTO Pondicherry.

Thereafter, our official, Mr. Rajha Aravamudhan has been to RTO office last month to address this issue. After that the
RTO official has given the prescribed format. Now, we have prepared the fresh letter and re-submitted at Pondicherry RTO
on September 21 2015 As per current status RTO officials are going to send notices (Form 37) one to Borrowers as-well as
Fancier (ICICI Bank) by first week of November 2015. Being union territory this is taking more time than other states
with regards to transfer of ownership. Due to the above mentioned issues, there was a delay in processing your request.
The whole transaction may take 60 to 90 days time as per oral communication by RTO officials.

We regret that your interactions with our officials were not satisfactory and understand the anxiety caused to you on the
matter.

We look forward to your co-operation

Shnya Khithani

Senior Management Desk….”  

15.           Thus, from the facts and circumstances narrated above, we can safely say that the vehicle in question was sold by the opposite parties
to the complainant on 30.04.2014, by suppressing material facts regarding death of original owner i.e. Ripon K. Malhotra as far as back on
29.06.2013. From the perusal of record, it also appears that this fact of death of Ripon K. Malhotra also stood suppressed by the opposite
parties from the RTO concerned, as a result whereof,  they (opposite parties) are facing difficulties in getting the registration certificate
transferred in their name and also in the name of the complainant. However, to wriggle out of the situation and also financial loss caused to
the opposite parties by Ripon K. Malhotra, they made the complainant a scapegoat and when he started making regular follow-ups, his case
was lingered on one pretext or the other and even as on today there is no registered owner of the vehicle in question. Section 39 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 defines as under:-

 “……Section 39 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

39. Necessity for registration.—No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or
permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with
this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a
registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner: …..”

Bare perusal of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988  clearly says that no person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor
vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered and the certificate of
registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner.
However, in the present case, as stated  above, the vehicle in question is still not carrying any certificate of registration either in the name of the
opposite parties or the complainant and at the same time, it has been repossessed from the original owner i.e. Ripon K. Malhotra, who has died on
29.06.2013.

                   Thus, even though the vehicle is in possession of the complainant, yet, he cannot use the same, on account of the reasons explained
above. One can imagine the plight of a person (in the present case of the complainant), who spent such a huge amount of Rs.25,25,000/- for a
second hand vehicle, in the year 2014 but is not able to drive/ply the same on account of the reason that the opposite parties failed to provide him
necessary documents/forms necessary under the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to get the same registered in his
name and on the other hand, concealed material facts regarding death of the original owner –Ripon K. Malhotra, as a result whereof, the matter
has been held by the RTO concerned for non completion of formalities by them (opposite parties). Whenever a vehicle is sold to a consumer, there
is an implied contract that it is free from all encumbrances. Whenever a consumer goes for purchase of  goods like vehicle in this case, his
expectation is that he would not encounter or face any inconvenience or hardships from the very beginning. However, in the present case, the
complainant is suffering  immensely in terms of loss of time, business, physical discomfort and emotions since 2014, having not reaped the fruits of
paying hard earned money for purchase of a vehicle. He purchased such a costly vehicle for his comfort but on the other hand, it became a
headache for him, as he could not use the same but on the other hand, was made a shuttle cock between the opposite parties and the RTO
concerned, from the beginning and till date he is unable to use it for the reasons explained above.  It is settled proposition that Consumer Protection
Act is a benevolent social legislation and is aimed to provide better protection of the interests of the consumers as defined in the preamble to the
Act itself. It is a simple case of adoption of unfair & restrictive trade practice and also deficiency in providing service on the part of the opposite
parties, to the complainant, in the manner referred to above, for which this Commission is competent to adjudicate the same, under summary
proceedings. Thus, we are of considered view that the interests of the complainant can be protected only if he is provided with the relief of refund
of amount paid alongwith interest and compensation.

16.           As far as reliance placed by Counsel for the opposite parties on letter dated 31.05.2014 is concerned, it may be stated here that
there is no evidence on record to prove that any such letter was either sent to the RTO Pondicherry or copy thereof alongwith necessary
forms was ever handed over to the complainant. On the other hand, the complainant at the time of arguments as also in the written argument
filed, has specifically denied of receipt of any such letter. In those circumstances, it was required of the opposite parties to place on record
any document to prove the dispatch of letter dated 31.05.2014 to the RTO concerned. Even if they were not in possession of the said proof
of mode of dispatch, they could have easily received acknowledgment of its receipt from the RTO concerned and produce on record before
this  Commission to strengthen their case but they miserably failed to do so. In this view of the matter, no reliance can be placed on letter
dated 31.05.2014, especially when the delivery thereof either to the RTO or the complainant has not been proved. No help therefore can be
drawn by the opposite parties from letter dated 31.05.2014 aforesaid.  
17.           To strengthen the case of the opposite parties, their Counsel contended that because the vehicle in question had been taken over by
the opposite parties on account of default in payment by original owner namely Mr.Ripon K. Malhotra and put to sale, which was purchased
by the complainant on “as-is-where-is-basis” and that too in an offline bid, as such, this consumer complaint is not maintainable before this
Commission. We have considered the contentions raised and are of the considered opinion that the same does not merit acceptance for the
reasons to be stated hereinafter.

                   It may be stated here that if the vehicle in question was sold to the complainant on “as-is-where-is-basis”  that will relate to only the
condition of the vehicle in question i.e. the complainant could not have raised any dispute with regard to its condition or any defects therein.
However, this fact has no relation with the process/exercise, which was to be carried out by the opposite parties under the Motor Vehicles Act and
Rules, for getting the transfer of registration certificate in the name of the transferee.  Though, there cannot be any dispute on this fact, even then it is
submitted that the opposite parties cannot circumvent the provisions of law, by way of taking any undertakings etc. which is not sustainable in the
eyes of law. At the same time, it is also held that it was a telephonic offer of the complainant with regard to purchase of the  vehicle in question,
which was accepted by opposite party no.2 vide email dated 25.04.2014, Annexure C-3. In this view of the matter, contention raised by the
opposite parties that because the vehicle in question was purchased by the complainant on “as-is-where-is-basis” and that too in an auction, as
such, this consumer complaint is not maintainable before this Commission, being devoid of merit stands rejected.

18.           As far as contention raised by the opposite parties to the effect that this complaint is barred by limitation, it may be stated here that
admittedly, the registration of the vehicle in question has still not been transferred either in the name of the opposite parties nor the
complainant. On the other hand, it is evident from email dated 04.12.2019 (at page 46 of the paper book) that the opposite parties were still
saying to the complainant that  they need more time to address his concerns and that they will revert by 10.12.2019. Relevant part of the
said email dated 04.12.2019 reads as under:-

“….Wednesday, 4 December 2019, 8

From senior.management@icicibank.com <senior management@icicibank.com

Dear Customer,

We refer to your lour account.

We appreciate your time and patience, however we realize that more time will be required to address the concerns raised
by you.

We thank you for your patience and assure that we will revert to you till December 10, 2019,

Thank you for your co-operation in the interim.

 Sincerely

Nisha Warang

Senior Management Desk….”

In this view of the matter, it is held that there is a continuing cause of action in favour of the complainant to file this complaint and, also, even if we
take two years from 04.12.2019, this complaint having been filed on 19.03.2020 is within limitation. Objection taken by the opposite parties in this
regard stands rejected.

19.           As far as reliance placed by the opposite parties on decision dated 18.02.2020 taken by the Banking Ombudsman during minutes of
meeting is concerned, it may be stated here that we have gone through the said document and found nothing in support of the opposite
parties. Whereas, on the other hand, bare perusal of contents of the said document reveals that the Banking Ombudsman, in a very candid
manner directed the opposite parties to reach out the complainant and resolve the issue.  This decision was taken by the Banking
Ombudsman in continuance of their  decision dated 27.12.2019, whereby, the opposite parties had been directed to issue RC and transfer
papers to the complainant free-of-cost, alongwith compensation of Rs.20,000/-. Thus, it was only in continuation of this decision dated
27.12.2019, that when the opposite parties approached the Banking Ombudsman, they were again directed to reach out the complainant
and resolve the issue. In this view of the matter, there is nothing favourable to the opposite parties in the decision dated 18.02.2020
aforesaid, and as such, no help therefrom can be drawn by them.
20.           For the reasons recorded above, this complaint is partly accepted with costs, and the opposite parties, jointly and severally, are
directed as under:-
1. To refund the entire amount of Rs.25,25,000 /-  received from the complainant alongwith interest @9% p.a., from the date of receipt
thereof,  within a period of 30 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, thereafter, they shall also
be liable to pay penal interest @12% p.a. on the said amount from the date of passing of this order till realization.

1. To pay compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant for causing him mental agony and harassment and also deficiency in
providing service, negligence and adoption of unfair trade practice and also cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- within a period of 30
days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which the said amounts shall carry penal interest @9% p.a. from the
date of passing of this order till realization.

21.           The complainant is directed to hand over possession of the vehicle in question to the opposite parties on receipt of the awarded
amount.
22.           Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
23.           The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced

22.12.2021

Sd/-

 [JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

          MEMBER

Sd/-
 (RAJESH K. ARYA)

 MEMBER

Rg.