Telangana

Mahbubnagar

CC/14/2011

M/s Rishi Vidyalaya High School, Mahabubnagar, Rep. by its Correspondent Smt. S. Chandrakala W/o S. Venkataiah, - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. Magma Finance Corporation Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

of Sri K. Pratap Kumar

22 Nov 2011

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM AT MAHABUBNAGAR

Tuesday, the 22^nd day of November, 2011 

                                                       Present:- Sri P. Sridhara Rao, B.Sc., LL.B., President

          Sri A. Veerupakshi, B.A., LL.B., Member       

C.C.NO. 14 Of   2011

Between:-

M/s Rishi Vidyalaya High School, Mahabubnagar, Rep. by its Correspondent Smt. S. Chandrakala W/o S. Venkataiah, age: 38 years, Opp: Prathibha Junior College, Kamala Nehru Colony, Mahabubnagar.                                                   … Complainant

And

1. Magma Finance Corporation Ltd. (Formerly known as Magma Shrachi Finance Limited) Regd. Office: 24, Park Street, Kolkata – 700 016.
2. Magma Finance Corporation Ltd., Room No.301 & 302, III Floor, Mandana Towers, H.No.7-1-59/2, & 59/6, Ameerpet, Hyderabad.
3. Magma Finance Corporation Ltd., C/o Anjaiah Complex, 1^st Floor, Padmavathi Colony, Mahabubnagar – 509 001.

                                                   … Opposite Parties

 This C.C. coming on before us for final hearing on 15-11-2011 in the presence of Sri K. Pratap Kumar, Advocate, Mahabubnagar on behalf of the complainant and Sri G. Raja Narender Reddy, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for OPs.1 & 2, and the OP-3 having been set exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum made the following:   

O R D E R

 (Sri P. Sridhara Rao, President)

1.  This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking a direction to the opposite parties to give N.O.C. for clearance of Hypothecation of School Bus vehicle No.AP22-V-2097 and take steps for the cancellation of said Hypothecation from the Registration Certificate of the said vehicle and to pay compensation of Rs.30,000/- besides costs of the complaint.  

2. The averments of the complaint in brief are that:- The complainant is an educational institution and the said School is being run by Rishi Educational Society, Mahabubnagar, which was formed with certain objects including no profit moto. The opposite party No.1 is the Financing Company and the Opposite party Nos.2 and 3 are its branches in Hyderabad and Mahabubnagar respectively. The complainant intended to purchase a School bus with financial assistance and accordingly availed financial assistance from Shrachi Securities Limited for purchasing School Bus. The said Shrachi Securities Limited was subsequently changed as Magma Shrachi Finance Limited. The said School Bus AP22-V-2097 was hypothecated in favour of Citicorp Finance (India) Ltd. The opposite parties are successor-in-interest of said companies. As per the terms of finance, the complainant has to pay the amount in 45 installments @ Rs.19,057/- per month commencing from September, 2005. The OP-3 used to collect the said installments from the complainant and issue receipts in the name of Shrachi Securities Limited, Shrachi Infrastructure Finance Limited, Magma Leasing Limited, Magma Shrachi Finance Limited and Magma Fincorp Limited from time to time.  The complainant was informed that all are sister concerns and belong to same group and hence the said receipts are being issued whenever the amount is collected towards repayment of loan amount in the name of different companies according to their administrative convenience.  The complainant has paid all the 45 installments and the last installment was paid in April, 2009 which was the expiry period. The opposite parties have not cleared the hypothecation of the said bus inspite of receiving the entire due.  When the complainant insisted them to clear the hypothecation and issue NOC, the opposite parties have informed the complainant that still there is an outstanding due amount of Rs.7,674/- towards penal charges for late payment of installments from time to time and asked the complainant to pay the said amount to clear the hypothecation. Though the complainant is not liable to pay the said amount, still the said amount was also paid by the complainant on 12-11-2009 through receipt No.119462 issued by the OP-3. Inspite of receiving the said amount the opposite parties are not clearing the hypothecation of the vehicle of the complainant and not issuing NOC and they are not giving proper response and not giving breakup details from the inception and the basis for their claim, but dodging the matter without any valid reasons. Thereupon, the complainant got issued legal notice on 18-5-2010 calling upon the opposite parties to issue NOC for clearance of hypothecation of the said vehicle and also for taking steps for the cancellation of hypothecation. The said notice was received by the OPs.2 and 3, but the OP-1 has evaded to receive the notice and managed to see that the registered cover also not received by the complainant. The OPs.2 and 3 inspite of receiving the notice also failed to give reply to the said notice and failed to take steps in the matter.  Such acts on the part of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency of services and unfair trade practice on their part. Because of the said acts of the opposite parties, the complainant is suffering a lot of hardship. Thus the present complaint is filed for the aforesaid relief.                          

3. While the opposite party No.3 remained exparte, the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 filed their counter stating that the complainant has paid the amount of Rs.7,674/- due by way of receipt bearing No.119462 is towards the partial dues and but not towards the total satisfaction of the dues.  Hence, there are dues which are payable to the opposite parties by the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the agreement agreed upon at the time of the execution of the contract, as such issuance of NOC does not arise, and that the complainant was informed about the pending dues and also was issued with the statement of account stating that he is due to the complainant.  It is further stated that the complainant has paid the EMIs at his will and wish but not on the stipulated dates which was resulted in attracting the penal charges as per the agreement, and that the issuance of NOC is subject to the clearance of the total dues, and that the complainant may collect the NOC by duly paying the total dues which are payable to the company, as such there is no deficiency of service and unfair trade practices on the part of the opposite parties and thus the complaint is liable to be dismissed.   

4. Thereupon the complainant in support of its claim got filed the affidavit evidence through its correspondent and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-44.   On the other hand, the opposite parties in support of their contentions filed their affidavit evidence and got marked Ex.B-1.   

5.  The points for determination now are: 

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties?

    (ii)  Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief sought for by it? 

    (iii)  To what effect? 

6. The undisputed facts in the case are that the complainant availed financial assistance from the opposite parties and purchased a school bus bearing No.AP22-V-2097 and accordingly entered into an agreement agreeing to repay the loan amount in 45 installments @ Rs.19,057/- per month commencing from September, 2005 and paid all the 45 installments but however with some irregular intervals.  It is also an admitted fact that the opposite parties not yet issued NOC and not cleared the hypothecation of the said vehicle on the ground that the last payment of Rs.7,674/- made by the complainant is towards the partial dues but not towards the total satisfaction of the dues.          

7. Point Nos.1 and 2:- It is the case of the complainant that after making payment of the amount of all the 45 installments, the opposite parties have not cleared the hypothecation of the said bus, that thereupon the complainant insisted them to clear the hypothecation and issue NOC, that at that time the opposite parties have informed that still there is an outstanding due amount of Rs.7,674/- towards penal charges for late payment of installments from time to time and asked to pay the said amount to clear the hypothecation, that thereupon though the complainant is not liable to pay the said amount, still the said amount was also paid on 12-11-2009 and inspite of receiving the said amount also the opposite parties are not clearing the hypothecation of the vehicle and not issuing NOC.  So the only dispute arose between both the parties is only with regard to the quantum of due to be cleared off by the complainant.

8. Therefore the question that has to be seen now is whether there is any truth in the case of the complainant as alleged and whether the complainant is entitled for the relief sought for in the complaint?      

9. In support of his contention that he was asked by the opposite parties to pay the outstanding due amount of Rs.7,674/- towards penal charges for late payment of installments from time to time to clear the hypothecation, and though he is not liable to pay the said amount but still the said amount was also paid by him on 12-11-2009 the complainant relied upon  Ex.A-44 copy of the Dues Vs. Paid Statement. But a perusal of the recitals of  Ex.A-44 clearly goes to show that the said statement is dated 18-6-2009 but not the statement dated 12-11-2009.  It is not the case of the complainant that he paid some more amount in the intervening period of 6-4-2009 to    12-11-2009. As per the very case of the complainant he paid all the 45 installments and the last installment was paid in the month of April, 2009 and later on the present amount of Rs.7,674/- was paid on 12-11-2009. The complainant except his self styled testimony did not produce any positive proof to show that as demanded by the opposite parties he paid the outstanding due amount of Rs.7,674/- towards penal charges for late payment of installments from time to time to clear the hypothecation.  In the absence of any such proof the statement Ex.A-44 relied upon by the complainant will not help him in any manner. On the other hand, the opposite parties relied upon Ex.B-1 copy of the ledger account dated  7-3-2011 maintained by them in respect of the loan availed by the complainant.  The complainant also not challenged the recitals of Ex.B-1 at anywhere either in his complaint or affidavit evidence. A perusal of the recitals of Ex.B-1 clearly goes to show that even after making payment of Rs.7,674/- the complainant is still having due of a sum of   Rs.1,70,725-69Ps.  It is also the contention of the opposite parties that the amount of Rs.7,674/- paid by the complainant is towards the partial dues and but not towards the total satisfaction of the dues. Further, the complainant also not assigned any reason as to how the calculations made under Ex.B-1 are not correct.  Therefore, the opposite parties have clearly established that the complainant is still having due of a sum of   Rs.1,70,725-69Ps., even after payment of Rs.7,674/-.   It is an admitted fact borne out from the record that as per the terms and conditions of the agreement the issuance of NOC is subject to the condition of the total payment due by the complainant.  So, in view of the said circumstances, the complainant, having still due of an amount of Rs.1,70,725-69Ps., to the opposite parties towards discharge of the liability, cannot allege any  deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties in not issuing the NOC and not clearing the hypothecation in respect of the vehicle in question. Hence for the reasons stated above, we hold that the complainant failed to establish the case against the opposite parties on the ground of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice and as such, the complainant is not entitled to the relief sought for and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  Both the points are answered accordingly in favour of the opposite parties and against the complainant.      

10. Point No.3:- In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  In view of the facts and circumstances, both the parties have to bear their own costs.   

        Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 22^nd day of November, 2011.    

 

   I agree                                                                                                                

 

 MEMBER                                                                                  PRESIDENT

Appendix of evidence

List of Witness examined

On behalf of Complainant:                          On behalf of Opposite Parties:   

- Nil -                                                                      - Nil -                                       

List of documents marked:-

On behalf of Complainant:-    

 

Ex.A-1: Original Receipt, dt.16.9.2005.

Ex.A-2: Original Receipt, dt.26.10.2005. 

Ex.A-3: Original Receipt, dt.15.11.2005.

Ex.A-4: Original Receipt, dt.23.11.2005.

Ex.A-5: Original Receipt, dt.8.12.2005.

Ex.A-6: Original Receipt, dt.24.3.2006.

Ex.A-7: Original Receipt, dt.10.4.2006.

Ex.A-8: Original Receipt, dt.23.6.2006.

Ex.A-9: Original Receipt, dt.7.10.2006.

Ex.A-10: Original Receipt, dt.30.12.2006.

Ex.A-11: Original Receipt, dt.20.1.2007.

Ex.A-12: Original Receipt, dt.21.2.2007.

Ex.A-13: Original Receipt, dt.27.2.2007.

Ex.A-14: Original Receipt, dt.9.4.2007.

Ex.A-15: Original Receipt, dt.17.4.2007.

Ex.A-16: Original Receipt, dt.29.5.2007.

Ex.A-17: Original Receipt, dt.13.6.2007.

Ex.A-18: Original Receipt, dt.30.6.2007.

Ex.A-19: Original Receipt, dt.30.7.2007.

Ex.A-20: Original Receipt, dt.23.8.2007.

Ex.A-21: Original Receipt, dt.24.9.2007.

Ex.A-22: Original Receipt, dt.24.10.2007.

Ex.A-23: Original Receipt, dt.14.12.2007.

Ex.A-24: Original Receipt, dt.10.1.2008.

Ex.A-25: Original Receipt, dt.18.2.2008.

Ex.A-26: Original Receipt, dt.18.3.2008.

Ex.A-27: Original Receipt, dt.16.4.2008.

Ex.A-28: Original Receipt, dt.10.6.2008.

Ex.A-29: Original Receipt, dt.3.5.2008.

Ex.A-30: Original Receipt, dt.15.7.2008.

Ex.A-31: Original Receipt, dt.19.8.2008.

Ex.A-32: Original Receipt, dt.8.9.2008.

Ex.A-33: Original Receipt, dt.8.10.2008.

Ex.A-34: Original Receipt, dt.3.11.2008.

Ex.A-35: Original Receipt, dt.4.12.2008.

Ex.A-36: Original Receipt, dt.6.1.2009.

Ex.A-37: Original Receipt, dt.6.2.2009.

Ex.A-38: Original Receipt, dt.7.3.2009.

Ex.A-39: Original Receipt, dt.6.4.2009.

Ex.A-40: Original Receipt, dt.12.11.2009.

Ex.A-41: Postal Acknowledgement.

Ex.A-42: Office copy of Legal Notice, dt.18.5.2010.

Ex.A-43: Photostat copy of Receipt, dt.4.12.2008.

Ex.A-44: Photostat copy of Statement of Account, dt.18.6.2009.

On behalf of OPs.:                          

 Ex.B-1: Copy of Statement of Account.                                                                                                                               

                                                                      

 

                                                                        PRESIDENT                                                                                                   

 

Copy to:-

1. Sri K. Pratap Kumar, Advocate, Mahabubnagar on behalf of the complainant.

2. Sri G. Raja Narender Reddy, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for OPs.1 & 2.

3. Magma Finance Corporation Ltd., C/o Anjaiah Complex, 1^st Floor, Padmavathi  Colony, Mahabubnagar – 509 001. (OP-3)