BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: HYDERABAD.
F.A.No.395/2013 against C.C.No.59/2012, District Forum, Adilabad.
Between:
Syed Zakeer S/o.Mohmood
Aged about 41 years, Indian
Occ:Owner of lorry bearing
Its Reg.AP01-V1670
R/o.H.No.4-4-83/1,
Bhoktapur Locality
Adilabad.
Presently residing at
H.No.2-1-97/1, Bokkalaguda
Adilabad-504 001. ..Appellant/
Complainant
AND
Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd.,
D.No.7-2-52/10/1, Behind Sana
Automobiles, NH-7 Road, Bhoktapur-2
Adilabad.
Shriram Transport Company Ltd.,
Mokambika complex, 3rd floor
4, Lady Desika Road,
Chennai 600 004. Respondents/
Opp.parties.
Counsel for the Appellant : M/s.V.Gourisankara Rao.
Counsel for the Respondents:Mr.V.Narasimha Rao.
QUORUM: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, PRESIDENT.
AND
SRI R.LAKSHMI NARASHIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER.
THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL,
TWO THOUSAND FOURTEEN
Order (As per Sri R.LakshmiNarasimha Rao, Hon’ble Member).
***
The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant.The appeal is directed against the order dated 17-4-2013 passed by the District Forum in C.C.No.59/2012.
The case of the appellant as seen from the averments of the complaint is that thecomplainant is engaged in transport business and he availed loan to the extent of Rs.5,50,000/- on 29-12-2009 from the respondents for the purpose of purchasing Lorry bearing registration number AP01-V-1570. Further, it is the case of the appellant that the respondents assured him that the rate of interest on the loan amount is 7% p.a. and believing the version of the first respondent, he signed the loan agreement and several other documents. The respondents furnished repayment schedule after the appellant paid the 1stinstallment and the appellant came to know that the respondents charged excessive rate of interest.
The appellant submitted that he paid an amount of Rs.4,81,534/- and the respondents had not issued receipt for an amounts of Rs.38,134/- and Rs.85,000/- which amount is shown in the statement of account. The respondents demanded the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.6,03,358/- which the appellant is not due and the period of loan agreement was expired 5.10.2013 by which time the amount due from the appellant was a sum of Rs.57,201/- which the appellant is ready to pay to the respondents. The appellant sought for direction to the respondents to collect 3 installments from him i.e an amount of Rs.57,201/-with interest at the rate as fixed by the Reserve Bank of India and not to seize the vehicle.
The respondents resisted the case contending that the appellant is not the original owner of the lorry bearing registration number AP-01-V-1570 and subsequently the appellant availed loan, a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- by hypothecating the lorry to the respondents. The appellant executed promissory note and other documents promising to pay interest @14.01% p.a. and the loan amount was to be repaid in 45 installments and on the same day the respondents handed over the loan payment schedule to the appellant.
The respondents submitted that the appellant executed documents in presence of witnesses and subsequently the appellant availed subsidiary loan of Rs.85,000/- on10.09.2010 and he executed child loan agreement in favour of the respondents. The appellant paid the loan amount of Rs.4,81,534/- which included insurance premium and the appellant is still due an amount of Rs.6,69,173/-. As per the terms of the hypothecation agreement, the respondents are entitled to repossess the lorry. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.
The appellant had not chosen to file his affidavit and the documents filed by him were marked ExA1 to A20. On behalf of the respondents, the Brach Manager of the respondents filed his affidavit and the documents, ExS.B1 to B4.
The District Forum dismissed the complaint on the premise of the appellant’s failure to clear the loan amount and the respondents’ right to seize the lorry in terms of the hypothecation agreement. The District Forum observed that the appellant is due an amount of Rs.6,69,173/- and without making payment of the amount, the appellant cannot seek for any relief in respect of the lorry.
Feeling aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the complainant has filed appeal contending that the respondents adopted unfair trade practice and they did not furnish copy of the hypothecation agreement to the appellant. The respondents obtained the signatures of the appellant and the sureties on blank papers. The appellant paid 23 installments totaling Rs.4,81,534/- including the insurance premium for a period of three years. The respondents fabricated the child loan agreement and collected interest at an excessive rate than the agreed rate and that the District Forum has not properly appreciated the evidence adduced by the appellant.
The point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum suffers from misappreciation of facts or law?
The facts not in dispute are that the appellant entered into hypothecation agreement with the respondents on 29-12-2009 in respect of lorry bearing registration number AP01-V-1570 and availed loan of an amount of Rs.5,50,000/- from the respondents. The appellant has disputed the rate of interest and the loan amount due as calculated in terms of the hypothecation agreement. The appellant has also submitted that the respondents had not shown in the statement of account the amount he actually paid to them.
The appellant executed the hypothecation agreement and promissory note as also other documents in favour of the respondents on 29-12-2009 and he paid the 1st loan installment.The appellant has not questioned the contents of the hypothecation agreement or those of the other documents either prior to or after the payment of 1st loan installment and he had not chosen to issue notice to the respondents expressing his apprehension about execution of the documents.
Ever since the hypothecation agreement was executed, the appellant has the obligation of obeying the terms thereof andhe has chosen to put forth the plea of his ignorance of the contents of the documents executed in favour of the respondents for the first time before the District Forum. As such, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is not sustainable.
The appellant availed loan, an amount of Rs.5,50,000/- from the respondents. The Hypothecation Agreement would show the following amount the appellant has to pay to the respondents:
Principal amount of Rs.5,50,000-00
Interest @ 14.01% p.a. (Flat on Rs.5,50,000/-
From 29-12-2009 to05-10-2013 which comes Rs.3,10,518-00
Payable 1st instalment Rs. 21,585-00
2 to 44 instalments (43) months x @ Rs 19,067 Rs. 8,19,881-00
45th instalment (last instalment) Rs. 19,052-00
And out of the above instalments, the appellant has paid (22) full instalments and 23rd in part. The payment details are as under:
As on 05-8-2012 paid particulars
1st full instalment x Rs.21,585/-= Rs. 21,585-00
2nd to 22nd full instalments (21x@Rs.19,067) Rs.4,00,407-00
23rd part instalment Rs. 2,029-00
Insurance amount paid
13-9-2010 to 12-9-2011 Rs. 16,680-00
13-9-2011 to 12-9-2011 Rs. 19,589-00
13-9-2012 to 13-9-2013 Rs. 21,244-00
As on 05-8-2012 arrears particulars i.e. due instalments
23rd part instalment Rs. 17,038-00
24th to 44th full instalments (21x@Rs.19,067) Rs.4,00,407-00
45th instalment Rs. 19,052-00
Subsidiary Loan dt.10-9-2010
Subsidiary Principal Loan amount Rs. 85,000-00
Interest (23 months X @ Rs.2,125) Rs. 48,875-00
Vehicle seizing expenses Rs. 5,804-00
Over due charges Rs. 92,997-00
The copy of the statement of account goes to show the amount paid by the appellant towards the 22 loan installments and part of the 23rdinstallment as also the particulars of the payment of insurance premium, the details of which read as under:
Principal amount of Rs.5,50,000-00
Interest @ 14.01% p.a. (Flat on Rs.5,50,000/-
From 29-12-2009 to05-10-2013 which comes Rs.3,10,518-00
Payable 1st instalment Rs. 21,585-00
2 to 44 instalments (43) months x @ Rs 19,067 Rs. 8,19,881-00
And out of the above instalments, the appellant has paid (22) full instalments and 23rd in part. The payment details are as under:
As on 05-8-2012 paid particulars
1st full instalment x Rs.21,585/-= Rs. 21,585-00
2nd to 22nd full instalments (21x@Rs.19,067) Rs.4,00,407-00
23rd part instalment Rs. 2,029-00
Insurance amount paid
13-9-2010 to 12-9-2011 Rs. 16,680-00
13-9-2011 to 12-9-2011 Rs. 19,589-00
13-9-2012 to 13-9-2013 Rs. 21,244-00
The appellant is due an amount of Rs.17,038/- towards balance amount of 23rd installment and a sum of Rs.4,00,407/- towards 24th to 44th installments and an amount of Rs.19,052/- towards 45th installment. Besides the aforesaid amount due, the statement of account obligates the appellant to pay the following amount pertaining to the subsidiary loan dated 10.09.2010.
Subsidiary Loan dt.10-9-2010
Subsidiary Principal Loan amount Rs. 85,000-00
Interest (23 months X @ Rs.2,125) Rs. 48,875-00
Vehicle seizing expenses Rs. 5,804-00
Over due charges Rs. 92,997-00
As the appellant failed to pay the loan installments as per the payment schedule, the respondents repossessed the lorry, the appellant failed to show that the rate of interest charged is contrary to RBI guidelines. The District Forum has rightly concluded that the appellant has to pay the amount due in terms of the statement of account. We do not find any infirmity in the findings recorded by the District Forum. The appeal is devoid of any merits and is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum. There shall be no separate order as to costs.
Sd/-PRESIDENT
Sd/-MEMBER
Dt.17-4-2014.
