BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD

F.A.No. 368  OF 2013 AGAINST C.C.NO.67 OF 2012 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, ADILABAD

Between

Mohammad Jafar Khan S/o Faiz Mohammad Khan

Age 47 years, Occ: Owner of the vehicle

Bearing No.AP25V.9171 R/o H.No.5-137, Ramnagar

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 Mumba-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 07.03.2013 made in CC No.67 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   the  complainant purchased  a lorry bearing no.AP25V-9171 by availing finance  of Rs.5,00,000/-  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.6,00,000/-  but the opposite party no.1 informed that the complainant has to pay an amount of Rs.5,22,534/-whereas the   complainant has to pay only an amount of Rs.2,46,796/ .     On 24.02.2012   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.5,22,534/-  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 28.02.2012 to settle the matter.     On 26.04.2012  the opposite party no.1 issued reply notice to the complainant .     Hence, the complaint praying to direct the opposite parties  to restrain them and their men the opposite parties, their men agents,  etc not to take back the vehicle together with costs.  

4.                          The opposite parties resisted the case contending that the  lorry bearing no.AP25V-9171 was hypothecated vide loan cum hypothecation agreement dated 31.12.2009 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.5,00,000/-   with interest @ 12.50% 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 loan details  are as follows:

  1. Principle amount of                                                        Rs.5,00,000.00

  2. Interest @ 12.50% p.a. (flat) on

      Rs.5,00,000/ from 15.08.2008 to 15.04.2012

      which comes to                                                              Rs.2,50,000.00         

                    Total agreed agreement value                            Rs.7,50.000.00

Payable amount in installments

1. 1 to 23^rd   installments (23) months x @ Rs.19,891/-       Rs.4,57,493.00
2. 24^th to 44^th  installments                                                Rs.2,79,195.00
3. 45^th installment(Last Installment)                                    Rs.   13,312.00

Total                                 Rs.7,50,000.00

 The complainant has paid (26) full installments and 27^th  in part. The payments details are as under:

1. As on 11.07.2011 paid particulars 

a). 1^st   to 23^rd   full installments x @Rs.19,891/-         Rs. 4,57,493.00

b). 24^th to 26th   Installments(3xRs,13295)                  Rs.    39,885.00

c). Insurance amount paid                                Rs.      2,881.00

i). 17.10.2009 to 16.10.2010                            Rs.    18,121.00

ii) 17.10.2010 to 16.10.2011                            Rs.    18,284.00

iii)17.10.2011 to 16.10.2012                             Rs.    25,136.00

                              Total                                 Rs.5,61,800.00

2.       As on 27.01.2013 arrears particulars i.e. due installments

          a). 27^th    installment                                                 Rs.    10,414.00

b).28^th  to 44^th  full installments                                
     (17x @ Rs.13,295/-)                                              Rs.2,26,115.00

c). 45^th  installment                                          Rs.   13,312.00

d)  Over due charges                                                  Rs.2,17,299.00

                                        Total                                Rs.4,67,040.00

5.                 It clearly shows that as on this day the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.5,61,800/ only which includes insurance amount but not Rs.6,00,000/-.  The complainant is liable to pay an amount of Rs.4,67,040/- but the opposite parties never informed the complainant to pay an amount of Rs.2,46,796/-.  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 A21.   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.67 of 2012 by orders dated 07.03.2012  as stated in paragraph No.1, supra.

 8.                Aggrieved by the said decision, the opposite party no.1  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.6,00,000/- which was evidenced vide Exs.A1 to A18 receipts.  The opposite parties were 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 party no.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 complainant 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  learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the complainant obtained loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from the opposite party no.1 for purchasing lorry and total amount of Rs.7,50,000/-    was payable in 45 monthly installments of Rs. 19,891/- for the first installment to 23^rd  installment and from 24^th installment to 44^th  installment   was Rs.13,295/- and the last installment was Rs.13,312/-.  The first installment was payable on 15.08.2008  and thereafter 44 installments were continuously payable   and to that effect an agreement  was executed between the parties.   The complainant only paid a sum of Rs.5,61,800/- to the opposite party no.1 and a sum of Rs.4,67,040/-  is still due against the complainant. The opposite parties did not commit any deficiency in service. 

12.               The complainant pleaded that the entire loan amount was paid by the complainant to the opposite parties and  only an amount of Rs.2,46,040/- 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 an amount of Rs.6,00,000/-  but the opposite parties stated that the complainant is still due an amount of Rs.4,67,040/-.    

13.               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.  

 14.                        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 appears 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 in all an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- and still he was due an amount of Rs.2,46,796/-  only  but the opposite parties denied the same.      Therefore, the District Forum ought to have verified the receipts, statements filed by both parties and them disposed of the case 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 07.03.2013 in C.C.No.67 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