BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD

 F.A.No.159/2013 against  C.C.No.143/2011, Dist. Forum, Mahabubnagar.

Between:                                                           

 Md.Jahangir Pasha, S/o.Md.Hussain,

Aged about 52 years,

Occ: Owner  of Ashok Leyland Lorry No.AP 02  W 2979,

R/o.H.No.25-98, Fazal Banda, Jadcherla,

Mahaboob Nagar District                                                           …. Appellant/

                                                                                          Complainant

      And

1. The Branch Manager,

    Srirama Transport Finance Company Ltd.,

    D.No.1-5-107/4A,Opp: Mallikarjuna  Enterprises,

    New  Town, Mahabub Nagar.

2. The Manager,

    Srirama Transport Finance Company Ltd.,

    Administrative Office:101-105, Shiva Chambers,

    Sector 11,  C.B.D. Belapur, Navi Mumbai.                      … Respondents/

                                                                                            Opp.parties                                                     

Counsel for the Appellant         :      M/s. K.V.Mallikarjuna  Pani

Counsel for the Respondents    :      Mr.Vakkanti Narasimha Rao   

QUORUM: SRI T.ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER 

                                AND

SRI S.BHUJANGA  RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER

                FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF  JULY,

TWO THOUSAND  FOURTEEN.

Oral Order: (Per  Sri S.Bhujanga Rao, Hon’ble Member)             

                                          ****                                         

    The unsuccessful  complainant filed the appeal  against the order dt.27.09.2012  of  the Dist. Consumer Forum, Mahabubnagar made in C.C.No.143/2011,whereunder the  Consumer Complaint filed by the appellant/complainant is dismissed. 

        The brief case of the appellant/complainant as per the complaint is that the appellant  is the owner of Ashok Leyland Lorry no.AP 02 W 2979 of 2006 model. The cost of the vehicle is Rs.8,70,000/-.  The appellant  paid Rs.2,20,000/- in cash and the remaining amount of Rs.6,50,000/-  was paid by obtaining  finance from the respondents/opp.parties herein.   In the month of March 2010, the respondents and the appellant herein entered into an agreement  dt.13.03.2010. As per the agreement, the appellant  has to repay the loan amount of Rs.6,50,000/-  in 40 instalments  @ Rs.24,329/- per month, commencing from  the Month of April,2010 and ending in the month of July,2013. 

        It is further stated  that the appellant has paid monthly instalments regularly, from April,2010 till September,2011, which comes to Rs.3,05,350/-. The appellant has not  paid  vehicle tax regarding the lorry due to Telangana Band, as a result, he could not ply the vehicle and could not pay the monthly instalments for September,2011 and October,2011.   The appellant approached the respondents  and requested for postponement of payment of monthly instalments.   But therespondents  refused to postpone the payment of instalments and they have been trying to seize the vehicle.   Even the appellant expressed his readiness to pay Rs.50,000/- to the respondents, promising to pay the remaining instalments 1 or 2 months thereafter. But the respondents did not agree, which is nothing but deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.  The appellant and his family members are   depending on the  income  derived out of the vehicle. If the vehicle is seized, the appellant and his family members put to hardship. Due to the attitude of the respondents, the appellant suffered  loss of money and mental agony. Hence the appellant filed the complaint seeking direction to the respondents not to seize the subject lorry after receiving Rs.50,000/-, giving two months time to pay the remaining amount, to pay Rs.30,000/- towards compensation for adopting unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and to pay Rs.20,000/- towards costs of the complaint.

        Resisting the complaint, the respondents/opp.parties filed written version denying the material allegations made in the complaint. The respondents denied that the appellant paid instalments regularly  and paid Rs.3,05,350/- upto September,2011. The respondents contended that they have not done anything illegal and did not violate any of the terms of the Loan cum  Hypothecation Agreement dt.13.03.2010.    A plain reading of the complaint discloses that there is no deficiency in service . The complaint is pre-mature without any cause of action and devoid of merits and hence the same is liable to be dismissed with costs.

        During the course of enquiry, in order to prove his case, the complainant filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to A19. On the other hand, theopp.parties filed  evidence affidavit and got marked Exs.B1 to B3.

        Having  heard the counsel for both the parties and having considered the material placed  on record,  the District Forum came to the conclusion that the appellant failed to establish his case on the ground of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice  on the part of the respondents herein.  Consequently, the District Forum dismissed the complaint without costs.

        Aggrieved by the said order, the  complainant preferred the above appeal urging  that the order of the District Forum is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case.   That the District Forum erred in holding that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents/opp.parties. That the District Forum ought to have seen that the appellant herein has not paid the two instalments  to the respondents, due to Telangana Agitation and the District Forum ought to have directed the respondent not to seize the vehicle, on receipt of Rs.50,000/- , giving time to pay the remaining  amount by way of easy instalments.   The appellant  finally  prayed to set aside the impugned order of the District Forum  and to allow the complaint. 

         We heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the entire material placed on record.

        Now the point for consideration is whether the impugned order of the District Forum is vitiated for misappreciation of fact or law?

          The admitted facts are  that the complainant is the owner of the Ashok Leyland lorry bearing AP 02 W 2979 2006 model.   At the time of purchasing   of the said vehicle,  the appellant  obtained   a loan of Rs.6,50,000/-  from the respondents  and entered into   Loan cum  Hypothecation Agreement dt.13.03.2010.   The total amount  payable under the agreement is Rs.9,76,449/- including financial charges of Rs.3,26,449/-. As per the terms of the  Agreement, the appellant has to pay the said  amount in  38 monthly instalments  @ Rs.24,329/-  commencing from 24.04.2010 to  20.07.2013.  

        The  appellant admitted   that he failed to pay  instalments  for September,2011 and October,2011 as he could not ply the vehicle   due to Telangana Bandh. The appellant contended that  he  is ready to pay Rs.50,000/-  towards part of the instalments due  and  promised to pay the remaining amount after one or two months.  But the  respondents did not agree for the same  and were trying to seize the vehicle.   Except the bald contention,  the appellant has not  adduced  any oral or documentary evidence to establish his above said case.    On the other hand,  the case of the respondents is that the  appellant  was not regular in payment of instalments and that   the respondents have  got right   under the  Loan cum Hypothecation Agreement dt.13.03.2010 to seize the vehicle, in case the appellant failed to pay the monthly instalments  as agreed under the said agreement. In view of the appellant’s categorical admission,  that he failed to pay the monthly instalments, he is not entitled to  seek the reliefs  as prayed in the complaint. The complainant failed to establish  deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the respondents. 

 For all the aforesaid   facts and circumstances, we do not find any irregularity or illegality in the impugned order of the District Forum to interfere with it. Hence the appeal fails. 

In the result, the appeal is  dismissed,  confirming the impugned order of the District Forum. No order as to costs.    

                                                                                                                                                                MEMBER

                                                                                MEMBER

                                                                                Dt. 18.7.2014

Pm*