<p>A car business and bank were fined Rs 60,000 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Srivilliputhur for providing subpar service to a client. The commission also ordered the company to reimburse the customer’s advance payment of Rs 24,000 in addition to other penalties.</p>
<p><img decoding=”async” class=”alignnone wp-image-430789″ src=”https://www.theindiaprint.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/theindiaprint.com-motor-vehicle-companies-and-banks-are-fined-rs-84000-by-the-consumer-forum-for-ser-750×628.jpg” alt=”theindiaprint.com motor vehicle companies and banks are fined rs 84000 by the consumer forum for ser” width=”1075″ height=”900″ title=”Motor vehicle companies and banks are fined Rs 84,000 by the Consumer Forum for service deficiencies 3″ srcset=”https://www.theindiaprint.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/theindiaprint.com-motor-vehicle-companies-and-banks-are-fined-rs-84000-by-the-consumer-forum-for-ser-750×628.jpg 750w, https://www.theindiaprint.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/theindiaprint.com-motor-vehicle-companies-and-banks-are-fined-rs-84000-by-the-consumer-forum-for-ser-1024×857.jpg 1024w, https://www.theindiaprint.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/theindiaprint.com-motor-vehicle-companies-and-banks-are-fined-rs-84000-by-the-consumer-forum-for-ser-768×643.jpg 768w, https://www.theindiaprint.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/theindiaprint.com-motor-vehicle-companies-and-banks-are-fined-rs-84000-by-the-consumer-forum-for-ser-150×126.jpg 150w, https://www.theindiaprint.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/theindiaprint.com-motor-vehicle-companies-and-banks-are-fined-rs-84000-by-the-consumer-forum-for-ser.jpg 1200w” sizes=”(max-width: 1075px) 100vw, 1075px” /></p>
<p>P Radhakrishnan of Rajapalayam filed a plea against the owner of a motor business in Rajapalayam, the manager of a motor company in Sivakasi, and the branch manager of a bank in Rajapalayam. The panel, which was made up of president SJ Chakkkaravarthy and member M Muthulakshmi, rendered a decision on the petition.</p>
<p>A Rajapalayam-based motor firm promised the petitioner in November 2022 that he may buy a two-wheeler for Rs 1.36 lakh on the day he paid an advance of Rs 25,000. The petitioner consented when the corporation said that they would arrange a bank loan for the remaining money on their behalf.</p>
<p>The petitioner registered the car at the regional transport office after completing the purchase. But later on, responders from the motor business informed him that the bank had denied the loan and demanded that he pay the remaining sum in order to get the book containing his vehicle’s registration certificate.</p>
<p>However, the bank’s hypothecation was tied to the RC book. The petitioner then requested a no objection certificate from the business in order to clear the sum and get a loan from a different bank. In March 2023, the petitioner’s car was confiscated by the respondents despite their repeated requests.</p>
<p>The panel found that the respondents were not providing adequate service, and it ordered the manager and owner of the motor firms to reimburse the advance of Rs. 24,000 to the parties. In addition, the petitioner ordered the three defendants to reimburse her for ~50,000 in damages for mental distress and tangible loss, as well as Rs 10,000 in legal fees.</p>
