:: O R D E R ::
(BY Smt.K. Vinaya Kumari, Lady Member)
1. THIS IS A COMPLAINT FILED U/SEC.12 OF Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are.,
3. The Complainant is the driver and owner of lorry No. AP 25 U 7433 which was financed by opp. Party No.1 in the year 2004 for Rs.6,00,000/- the Complainant repaid an amount of Rs.5,69,552/- to the Opposite Party No.1 and was due an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- only. At the instance of opp. Party No.1 the H.P Agreement was renewed by the Opposite Party. No.2 Stating that they will finance further amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- to the Complainant. Being an illiterate the Complainant accepted the renewal of H.P agreement under the impression of further financial help of Rs. 4,50,000/- and signed the H.P agreement with the Opposite Party No.2 on 8-12-2008 for Rs. 5,50,000/- out of which the Opposite Party No.2 promised to pay Rs. 4,50,000/- and Rs. 1,00,000/- was to be adjusted for the arrears. But the Opposite Party No. 2 paid only Rs. 40,000/- to him and promised to pay the balance within 15 days. The complainant being illiterate executed blank documents and H.P agreement. The complainant paid monthly installments regularly but the Opposite party failed to pass entire receipts on the pretext of issuance of receipts later. The Opposite party adjusted the payment of installment paid by the complainant towards heavily charged penal interest, over due charges without any intimation to the complainant and the same was not mentioned in the H.P. agreement.
While so, the lorry met with accident on 6-3-2011 and the complainant spend money on its repairs. As the lorry was insured with Opposite Party No. 3 which is a sister concern company of Opposite Parties the complainant claimed Rs. 1,90,000/- towards damages. The Opposite Party No.3 paid only Rs. 93,000/- to the Opposite Party No. 2 directly and the Opposite Party No. 2 did not include the amount in his account. If the Insurance claim amount is credited in complainant account and if the balance loan amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- is released by Opposite Party No. 1 there will not be any due from complainant to the Opposite party.
On 25-03-2011 the Opposite Party demanded Rs. 5,00,000/- under head of ODC and penal charged for issuance of clearance certificate and threaten to seize the lorry if the said amount is not paid. When the complainant approached the Opposite Party on 26-03-2012 for the details of loan account the Opposite Party demanded Rs. 5,00,000/- and threaten to seize the lorry without giving any notice though there is no due from complainant to the Opposite Party.
The above acts of the Opposite parties are illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Therefore approached the Forum with a prayer to direct the Opposite Party not to seize the lorry vide No. AP 25 U 7433 and to pay Rs. 90,000/-towards damages and Rs. 9000/- towards costs and also award future interest and costs of litigation.
During the pendency of the complaint the complainant filed a petition vide IA 25/2012 for not to seize the lorry bearing No. AP 25 U 7433 belonging to the petitioner and not to present the blank signed cheques pending disposal of the complaint and the same was allowed on deposit of Rs. 25,000/ by the complainant in the Forum vide Order dated 7-05-2012 and the petitioner deposited Rs. 25,000/- on 14-05-2012 before the Forum.
4. The Opposite Parties 1 & 2 field common counter in detail contending that the vehicle was financed to the complainant by them on 10-07-2006 and not in the year 2004 as contended by the complainant for Rs. 6 lakhs vide agreement No. ISLNZ 30075732 with agreement value for Rs. 8,78,400/- to be repaid in 45 installments @ 23,924/- from 1st to 15th installment and @ 20,996/- from 16th to 30th installment and @ 14,840/- from 31st to 45th installment. Subsequently the complainant committed default of repayment of EMI’s and also utilized credit card of Opposite parties. The Opposite Parties also paid insurance premiums for the lorry thus the entire due became Rs. 9,96,701/- out of which the complainant paid only Rs. 5,08,952/- and there was net balance of Rs. 4,87,749/- due to the Opposite Party. At request and requisition letter of the complainant dated 18-11-2008 the Opposite party refinanced a net value of Rs. 5,50,000/- and its agreement value of Rs. 8,74,400/- including interest of Rs. 3,24,500/- to be repaid 45 monthly installment to the complainant.
As per the complainant requisition letter, Rs. 4,92,000/- was adjusted towards arrears and the complainant had executed HP agreement bearing No. NIZA 3081260003 dated 27-11-2008, and the complainant received cheque bearing No. 028829 State Bank Of India dated 27-11-2008 for Rs. 51.650/- towards the balance settled amount.
Opposite Parties 1 and 2 contended, that the complainant received the said amount without any objection which reveal his acceptance of entire transaction. The Opposite Party No. 3 credited an amount of Rs. 91,136/- and not Rs. 93,000/- as stated by the complainant in the account of Opposite Party No.2 towards claim regarding accident of the lorry. If the complainant had any objection about the claim he can proceed against Opposite party No.3.
As per requisition made by the complainant for repair of the vehicle the Opposite party has issued a State Bank India Cheque, for Rs. 70,000/- and also issued two Andhra Bank Cheques for an amount of Rs.18,150/- and 18,150/- for tyre loans.
The Opposite parties further contended that since the year 2008 the complainant has been paying the installments irregularly and totally paid Rs. 4,76,416/- as on 29-12-2011 which was last date of payment and paid installment upto December 2011. As the complainant became a chronic defaulter of repayment of EMI the Opposite Party sent many reminders and put him on notice dated 1-02-2011 and on 1-12-2011 demanding for regularization of the payments of EMI but he did not choose to repay the installments on one pretext or other. The complainant is due an amount of Rs. 4,53,253/- towards installments as on 1-6-2012 and future installment of RS. 58,299/- totaling to Rs. 5,11,522/- which includes three insurance premiums. The Opposite parties entitled for the said amount with accrued interest on cost only to counter blast the notices of the Opposite parties 1 & 2 and to evade the repayment of EMI the complainant filed a false complaint in the Forum which is improper and is unjustified.
Finally contended that the complainant being a defaulter has no right to claim reliefs and can not escape the repayment of the loan and is not entitled for any relief from the forum and prayed to dismiss the complaint as vexatious with exemplary costs in the ends of Justice.
In spite of service of the notice Opposite Party No.3 called absent and there was no representation on behalf of Opposite party No.3 hence the Opposite party No.3 was set exparte on 27-04-2012
5. During the enquiry on behalf of Opposite parties 1 & 2 Sri. V. Ramakrishnudu, Branch Manager field his affidavit as RW1 in lieu of evidence and got marked Ex. B1 to B19 documents.
In spite of giving sufficient and reasonable time the complainant did not file his chief affidavit in lieu of evidence and has not adduced any evidence. Hence the evidence on behalf of complainant is closed on 3-4-2013.
6. Heard arguments of the counsel for Opposite parties 1 & 2 and perused the material on record. The counsel for complainant did not advance his arguments and Forum deemed that there are no arguments on behalf of complainant.
7. The following points arise for consideration.
i) Whether the complainant is entitled for any reliefs prayed for?
ii) To what reliefs?
8. Point No.1 & 2
It is an admitted fact that the complainant had taken vehicle loan from Opposite parties for an amount of Rs. 6 lakhs. The accident of vehicle is not disputed.
The disputed facts are the complainant alleged that he had taken vehicle loan in the year 2004 and not in the year 2006 as contended by Opposite Parties and further alleged the Opposite Parties are demanding Rs. 5,00,000/- and trying to seize his vehicle thought he paid Rs. 5,69,552/- and was due only Rs. one lakh. The Opposite Parties made him sign on the blank papers of HP agreement stating that they will refinance an amount of RS. 5,50,000/- and being illiterate he signed the documents and Opposite Parties instead of paying Rs.5,50,000/- paid only Rs.40,000/-. The complainant alleged that the Opposite parties 1 and 2 are trying to seize his vehicle without any prior notice and due procedure and acts of the Opposite Parties amounts to deficiency in service. But the complainant did not choose to file any evidence on his behalf and did not file his chief affidavit no documents marked.
The Opposite Parties 1 & 2 counters the said allegations and contended that they financed vehicle loan to the complainant in year 2006 as per HP agreement dated 20th May 2006 vide agreement No.TSLNZ 30075732.
Further stated that as per requisition letter of complainant dated 18-11-2008 they refinance an amount of Rs. 5,50,000/- to the complainant and as per his requisition letter they adjusted RS. 4,92,000/- towards arrears and paid the remaining amount of Rs.51,650/- to the complainant. The complainant is a regular defaulter and notices were send to the complainant and his guarantor dated 1-12-2011 and 3-01-2012. The complainant to evade payment filed a false complaint and prayed to dismiss the complainant against them in the ends of justice and in evidence filed Ex. B1 to B19 documents
The complainant though alleged deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties did not choose to file any evidence on his behalf and did not file his chief affidavit. The complainant failed to produce any evidence in spite of giving several opportunities. Opposite Parties on their behalf filed chief affidavit of RW1 and got marked Ex. B1 to B19 documents.
In view of above said reasons we are of considered opinion that the complainant failed to prove his case against the Opposite parties and the complainant is not entitled for any reliefs as prayed for and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. In these Circumstances the Orders passed in IA 25/12 dated 7-5-2012 become infactuous and the Complainant is entitled to withdraw the said amount of Rs. 25,000/- deposited in the Forum in the said IA.
In the result, the complaint is “DISMISSED” without cost. The complainant is at liberty to withdraw the amount of Rs. 25,000/- deposited in the Forum after the appeal period is over.
Dictated to Stenographer, Corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 31st day of July 2013.
