BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD

F.A.No. 367  OF 2013 AGAINST C.C.NO.48 OF 2012 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, ADILABAD

Between

G.Subash S/o Piraji

Age 56 years, Occ: Owner of vehicle

Bearing No.MH29T-0126, R/o H.No.3-1-226/2,

Indranagar, Hanuman Temple,

Adilabad. 

Appellant/ complainant

AND

1. The Branch Manager,

Shriram Transport Finance Company, Ltd.,

Adilabad.

2. The Branch Manager

Sriram Transport Finance Co.,

          The Regd. III Floor, Mukambakai Complex

          Desika Road, Maylapur,

          Chennai-600 004

3.  The Manager,

Administrative Office, 101-105, 1^st Floor

B-Wing, Shiv Chambers, Sector 11, CBD

Belapur, Navi Mumbai-400614

                                                            Respondents/opposite parties

Counsel for the Appellant                  M/s  V.Gourisankara Roa

Counsel for the Respondents             M/s  C.Praveen Kumar

QUORUM              :

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA, PRESIDENT

&

SRI PATIL VITHAL RAO, MEMBER

MONDAY THE FIFTH DAYOF MARCH

TWO THOUSAND EIGHTEEN

Oral Order : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon’ble President)

***

          This is an appeal filed by the complainant  aggrieved by the orders   of District Consumer Forum, Adilabad  dated 06.03.2013 made in CC No.48 of 2012   wherein it  dismissed the complaint.          

2.                 For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the complaint.

3.                 The case of the complainant, in brief,  is that  complainant   the  complainant purchased  a lorry bearing no.MH29T 0126 by availing finance  of Rs.4,40,000/-  from the opposite party no.1.      The complainant paid the loan amount regularly without any default. The complainant altogether had paid an amount of Rs.9,98,500/-  but the opposite party no.1 informed that the complainant has to pay an amount of Rs.5,20,778/-whereas the   complainant has to pay only an amount of Rs.62,028/ .     On 17.04.2012   the opposite party no.1 along with their men came to the complainant with duplicate key of the lorry and tried to seize the vehicle but the complainant with great difficulty kept the vehicle in his possession. While leaving the opposite party no.1 threatened the complainant to pay the amount of Rs.5,20,778/-  otherwise they would take back the vehicle at any time. The complainant got issued legal notice to the opposite parties no.1 to 3 on 18.04.2012 to settle the matter amicably and also stated in the notice that the complainant is ready to pay the amount of Rs.62,028/ .   On 26.04.2012 the legal advisor of the opposite party no.1 issued reply notice to the complainant counsel.    On 14.05.2012 the opposite party no.1   along with his men   seized the vehicle   without prior information or notice to complainant.    After seizing the vehicle the complainant approached the opposite party no.1 and requested to release the vehicle as the complainant is ready to pay the amount of Rs.62,028/ . The complainant is eking his livelihood by the above said vehicle. The vehicle is kept in the custody of the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3. The complainant incurred an amount of Rs.40,000/-  for replacement of new tyres and also incurred an amount of Rs.30,000/ for minor repairs.   Hence, the complaint praying to direct the opposite parties  to release the vehicle immediately; to pay an amount of Rs.1,19,000/- towards compensation, loss of earning, costs and the amount which was taken from the vehicle and costs of the complaint.  

4.                          The opposite parties resisted the case contending that the  lorry bearing no.MH 29 0126 was hypothecated vide loan cum hypothecation agreement to the opposite party no.1,   therefore, the opposite party no.1 is the owner of the vehicle till the payment of loan amount.   The complainant availed loan of Rs.4,40,000/-   with interest @ 14.50% per annum payable in (45) monthly installments and on the same day, the complainant  also executed the promissory note and repayment schedule in favour of opposite party no.1.   The complainant again obtained the tyre loan on 04.10.2010 for Rs.22,000/ and 26.10.2010 for Rs.28,000/ in all Rs.50,000/ by executing the Child Loan agreement and the loan details are as follows:

  1. Principle amount of                                                        Rs.4,40,000.00

  2. Interest @ 14.50% p.a. (flat) on

      Rs.4,40,000/ from 31.12.2009 to 05.10.2013

      which comes to                                                              Rs.2,56,637.00         

                    Total agreed agreement value                            Rs.6,96,637.00

1. Payable 1^st  installment                                                  Rs. 16,886.00   
2. 2 to 44^th  installments (43) months x @ Rs.15,449/-        Rs.6,64,307.00
3. 45^th  installment (Last installment)                                  Rs.15,444.00

Total                                 Rs.6,96,637.00

 The complainant has paid (17) full installments and 18^th  in part. The payments details are as under:

1. As on 16.08.2012 paid particulars  

a). 1 st full installment x Rs.16,886/                           Rs.    16,886.00

b). 2^nd  to 17^th  full installments (

c). 18^th Part Installment                                             Rs.    15,116.00

d). Insurance amount paid

i). 10.09.2010 to 09.09.2011                            Rs.    18,156.00

ii). 10.09.2011 to 09.09.2012                           Rs.     21,408.00

          2.       Tyre Loans

                    i)  dt:04.10.2010 (Rs.5500/- x4 installments                Rs.   22,000.00

                    ii) dt.28.09.2011 (Rs.7000/-x4 installments                 Rs.   28,000.00

                                                            Total                                Rs.3,68,750.00

3.       As on 16.08.2012 arrears particulars i.e. due installments

          a). 18^th  part installment                                            Rs.        333.00

b).19^th  to 44^th  full installments
     (26x @ Rs.15,449/-)                                              Rs.4,01,674.00

c). 45 th installment                                                   Rs.   15,444.00

d). Vehicle seized expenses                               Rs.     6,742.00

e). Over due charges                                                   Rs.    14,930.00

                                        Total                                Rs.4,39,123.00

5.                 It clearly shows that as on this day the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.3,68,750/ only.       The opposite party no.1 is ready to settle the account of the complainant on payment of due installment amount   of Rs.4,39,123/- and on such payment the opposite party no.1   is ready to release the seized vehicle in favour of complainant.   As such seized vehicle is not the source of income of the complainant and if ought to have earned Rs.2,000/ per day on seized vehicle there is no bar to complainant to pay Rs.15,449/- monthly installment to the opposite party no.1.   Hence, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

6.                In proof of the complainant’s case, he  filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 to A76.   On behalf of the opposite parties, the Manager (Legal)      filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Exs.B1 to B3. 

 7.                The District Forum after considering the material available on record, dismissed the complaint bearing CC No.48 of 2012 by orders dated 06.03.2012  as stated in paragraph No.1, supra.

 8.                Aggrieved by the said decision, the complainant  preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate the facts in correct perspective.   The District Forum failed to see that the complainant/appellant in all paid an amount of Rs.9,98,500/- which was evidenced vide Exs.A5 to A38 receipts.  The opposite parties have not given any opportunity to the complainant/appellant to clear all the dues, if any,  but without giving prior notice and any opportunity, the opposite partyno.1 seized the vehicle illegally.  The appellant/complainant is ready and willing to pay the amount of Rs.68,028/- as stated in repayment schedule.     Hence, the opposite parties prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the order of the District Forum and allow the complaint as prayed for. 

9.                  Counsel on both sides present and were heard.    Counsel for the both parties filed their respective written arguments.  

10.                         The point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned orders as passed by the District Forum suffer from any error or irregularity or whether they are liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner?  To what relief?

11.               The case of the complainant before the District Forum,  in nutshell,  was that he purchased a lorry with the help of finance provided by the respondents/opposite parties and was paying regular installments, but the respondent/opposite parties without any prior notice repossessed the lorry and thus committed deficiency in service. 

12.                The  learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the complainant obtained loan of Rs.4,40,000/- from the opposite party no.1 for purchasing lorry and   total amount of Rs.6,96,637/- was payable in 45 monthly installments of Rs. 16,886/- for the first installment and from 2^nd  installment and from 44^th installment was Rs.15449/- and the last  45^th  installment   was Rs.15,444/-.   The complainant only paid a sum of Rs.3,68,750/- to the opposite party no.1 and a sum of Rs.4,39,123/-  is still due against the complainant. The opposite parties did not commit any deficiency in service.  

13.               The complainant pleaded that the entire loan amount was paid by the complainant to the opposite parties and  only an amount of Rs.68,028/- was due and therefore on payment of the balance of the said amount the opposite parties are liable to release the vehicle which was repossessed by them.     The receipts filed by the complainant show that the complainant had paid a total amount of Rs. 9,82,500/- which shows that the complainant has paid over and above the loan amount. 

14.               On the other hand the opposite parties denied the receipts and stated that the receipts filed by the complainant are not of the present loan amount,  but some of the receipts are pertaining to first loan account.     It appears that the complainant did not deposit the full loan amount continuously in 45 monthly installments.  The first installment commenced from 15.10.2006 and the complainant has to be completed the installment by  15.06.2010 but the receipts filed by the complainant also show that he has paid the installments  till 2012.  The total amount paid by the complainant according to the receipts     produced by the complainant regarding bonafidely making payment of the instalment, is not matching from the statement of account submitted by the opposite parties but it appears that the complainant has not regularly paid  instalments  due to which he was liable to pay the instalments with the delay charges.  

 15.                        Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we may point out that while dealing with a complaint   this is not the way to dispose of the matter. The District forum is bound to refer to the pleadings of the case, the submissions of the counsel, necessary points for consideration, discuss the evidence and dispose of the matter by giving valid reasons.  But in this case the District Forum appear to be not discussed the evidence filed by the complainant in detail, particularly, the receipts filed by the complainant as to the veracity of the receipts, which the complainant has stated that they paid over and above the loan amount but on the other hand the opposite parties stated that all the receipts are not pertaining to the subject loan amount but they also pertaining to other loan amount.  Therefore, the District Forum ought to have verified the receipts, statements filed by both parties and to dispose of the case accordingly as per law.         Therefore, it is just and proper to remit the case back to the District Forum for proper adjudication of the case on the basis of above documents.

                    In the result, the appeal is allowed   and the impugned order dated 06.03.2013 in C.C.No.48 of 2012 of the District Forum, Adilabad, is set aside. The case is remanded back to the District Forum, with a direction to the District Forum to go through the documents filed by the complainant and the opposite parties in detail afresh and decide the matter as per law.   Since the complaint is  sufficiently old  it  is directed that the  complaint shall be  disposed of  as early as possible.    No costs.

                                                                      PRESIDENT                     MEMBER

                                                                                       05.03.2018