O R D E R
(By Sri. Ganesh Jadhav, President)
1. THIS IS A COMPLAINT FILED U/SEC.12 OF Consumer Protection ACT, 1986.
2. The brief facts set out in the complaint are that complainant No.1’s husband namely Toparam Gangabapu, was an agriculturist and having a tractor. He along with complainant Nos.1 and 2 approached OP No.1 who is authorized dealer of Mahindra tractors with a request to exchange his old tractor with New Mahindra 475 DI Bhoomiputra BS tractor in exchange offer scheme floated by OP No.1. The OP No.1 valued the old tractor of Toparam Gangabapu @ Rs. 3,10,000/- and the new tractor was quoted at Rs. 5,79,999/- besides SCDC charges Rs. 25,000/-. When Toparam Gangabapu requested for financial assistance to additional amount and on the said request the OP No. 1 called OP No.3 who deals in financial business for vehicles and arranged loan facility through the said financial institute. It is alleged that before approval of loan the Ops 1 and 3 put condition that the owner of the vehicle should be insured his life for financed amount for in the event, if he died within the term of payment period the balance amount they will be recovered directly from that insurance company and also put another condition that total finance amount they directly pay to OP No.1 including insurance premium. On said terms and conditions a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- was advanced by OP No. 3 and signatures of Gangabapu were taken on printed blank Proforma and also on insurance policy papers and directed to furnish one guarantor and on that complainant No.2 stood as guarantor and on completing all formalities the OP No.3 issued a cheque for Rs. 3,00,000/- ( Rupees three lakhs only ) to OP No.1 which includes vehicle finance amount Rs. 2,69,999/- ( Rupees Two lakhs sixty nine thousand nine hundred and ninety nine only) and SCDC charges Rs. 25.000/- ( Rupees twenty five thousand only) and Rs. 5001/- ( Rupees five thousand one only ) for insurance Premium. The OP No. 2 is the higher authority of OP No.3 which would scrutinize the loan payments. Further it is alleged that transaction took place in the month of June 2010 vide loan agreement No. OKG/254443 and the OP No. 2 fixed the loan installments @ Rs. 69,125/- per six months.
It is further alleged that Toparam Gangabapu purchased the said tractor on the above said terms and conditions from OP No. 1 with financial assistance of OP No. 3 and the same was got registered as AP-25-AC 6719 and he repaid two loan installments from time to time amounting to Rs. 1,38,325/- as on the date of filing this complaint i.e Rs. 69,125/- on 10-12-2010 and Rs. 69,200/- on 11-06-2011 respectively and while the things are stood so, the husband of complainant No. 1 (Toparam Gangabapu) met with electrocuted at his agricultural field and died on spot on 17-09-2011. And a case in Cr. No. 121/2011 was registered. It is further alleged that immediately the complainants 1 and 2 informed OP No.1 along with documents. On that OP No.1 directed them to inform OP No.3, accordingly the said fact was informed. OP No.3 informed that the owner of the tractor was not insured as they did not pay the premiums towards insurance and OP No. 1& 3 blamed each other in front of complainant No. 1 and 2 for non payment of insurance premium. The OP No. 1 and 3 finally warned the complainants 1 and 2 that they are no way concerned for non payment of insurance premium and the complainant shall pay installments regularly else they will seize the tractor bearing registered No. AP 25 AC 6719. Thereby OP No.1 & 3 cheated the complainants 1 & 2 by taking money towards insured husband of complainant No.1 for loan amount but same is not paid to any insurance company. Thereby the acts of the Ops in doing so amounts to unfair practice of trade and deficiency of service due to which acts the complainant No.1 is to put to lot of agony, pain and hard ship both monetary and physically. Therefore the complainants prayed to direct the Opposite parties not to seize the tractor bearing registered No. AP 25-AC-6719 and not to demand balance installments from the complainants 1 & 2 as Ops 1 to 3 cheated the husband of complainant No.1 by non insuring him by receiving premium and further to close the loan account agreement No. OKG/254443 and to direct to Op 1 to 3 to furnish no object certificate in respect of above tractor and to re-endorse on the certificate of registration in respect of Tractor No. AP-25-AC-6719 infavour of the complainant No. 1 and to return all the loan documentation papers and to pay the compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- for the deficiency services rendered and acting negligently and resorting to unfair practice of trade and to pay costs of the complaint and to award any other relief or reliefs which the Hon’ble Forum deems fit and proper.
3. The Op No. 1 remained exparte. The Ops 2 & 3 filed their counter wherein it is admitted that complainant No.1‘s husband Sri. Toparam Gangabapu approached the Opposite parties seeking financial assistance for purchasing a Mahindra tractor vehicle being model 475 BP bearing chassis No. NCPL4001425 OBP 050 and Engine NO. NCP-400/425 OBP 050. Further it is stated that after negotiations and being satisfied with the financial credentials of the complainant No.1’s husband, the Opposite Parties agreed to grant loan for Rs. 3,00,000/- and Sr. Toparam Ganga Bapu agreed to take loan for purchasing the said vehicle under a Loan Cum Hypothecation Agreement dated 14-06-2010. The loan amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- is repayable with interest @12.75% in six half yearly installments @ Rs. 69,125/- per half year commencing from 10-12-2010. Apart from the Loan Cum Hypothecation Agreement Mr. Lambad Malavath Balu i.e. Complainant No.2 herein, executed separate letter of Guarantee dated 12-06-2010 and after execution of the relevant documents the loan amount was released in favour of Sri. Toparam Ganga Bapu and the same was utilized for purchasing the said vehicle. OPs 2 and 3 denied that Sri. Toparam Ganga Bapu along with the complainants approached Opposite Party No. 1 with a request to exchange their old tractor with a new one and that OP No. 1 valued the old tractor for Rs. 3,10,000/- and price for the above said new tractor was quoted at Rs. 5,79,999/- and addition to value of the tractor SCDC charges Rs. 25,000/- as these are the alleged transactions between Sri. Toparam Ganga Bapu and OP No. 1 and the complainants are put to strict proof of the same. The other allegations are also between the complainants and Sri. Toparam Gangabapu with OP No. 1. It is also denied that the Opposite parties put a condition to Sri. Toparam Gangabapu and the complainants that the owner of the vehicle should be insured for life for financing the amount and put another condition that total finance amount they directly pay to OP No. 1 including insurance premium and the complainants are put to strict proof of the same. They further denied that these Ops asked Sri. Toparam Ganga bapu to sign on the blank printed proforma along with insurance policy papers. It is stated that the original cost of the tractor was Rs. 5,79,999/- and Sri. Toparam Gangabapu paid the margin money of Rs. 2,79,999/- and took loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- from the Opposite Parties vide Loan Cum Hypothecation Agreement dated 12-06-2010 and Sri. Toparam Gangabapu and complainants are liable to pay the installments as per the terms and conditions of the loan cum hypothecation agreement. The fact of payment of two installments by Toparam Gangabapu was admitted and stated that subsequent installments of loan amount have been grossly defaulted and therefore these OPs have every right to repossess the vehicle in terms of the loan agreement on default in payments of installments and prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs in the circumstance of the case and pass such other order or orders to achieve the ends of justice.
4. During enquiry neither the complainants nor the Opposite parties adduced any evidence on their behalf to prove their respective pleas taken by them. Perused the pleadings of the parties and documents filed by them.
5. The points for consideration are as follows:
i) Whether the acts of the Opposite parties amount to unfair practice of trade and deficiency of service ?
ii) Whether the complainants 1 & 2 are entitled for the relief prayed for?
iii) To what relief?
6. POINT NOs. 1 TO 3
It is not in dispute that the husband of complainant No. 1 namely Toparam Gangabapu has purchased Mahindra 475 DI Bhoomiputhra BS tractor from OP No.1 with financial assistance of Rs. 3,00,000/- from OP No.3, in an “Exchange offer scheme”. It is also not in dispute that OP No. 3 advanced an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- under loan agreement No. OKG/254443 repayable at fixed loan instalments @ Rs. 69,125/- for six months and complainant No.2 stood as guarantor for the said loan amount. It is also not in dispute that the husband of complainant No. 1 Toparam Gangabapu repaid two loan instalments amounting to Rs. 1,38,325/- by the date of filing this complaint i.e Rs. 69,125/- and Rs.69,200/- on 10-12-2010 and 11-06-2011 respectively. The death of the husband of complainant No.1 on 17-09-2011 due to electrocution was not in dispute. The complainants alleged that there was an insurance policy coverage wherein the owner of the vehicle was insured by it and in the event of his death the amount would be paid by the insurance company to OP No. 1 which was denied by the Ops according to whom there is no such coverage of insurance.
Except the above bald allegations made by the complainants with regard to the coverage of insurance there is no evidence on record to show that the husband of complainant No.1 insured himself with any insurance company. Complainant No.1 has not adduced any evidence either by way filing her affidavit or examining any witnesses. She has also not filed any insurance Policy with regard to the coverage of tractor under the said insurance policy. She has failed to prove the allegation made by her against the Ops. In absence of any evidence, the allegations made by the complainant can not be gone into by the Forum as the pleadings are not the evidence in view of the decision in Solanki Bharthuji Fataji V/s. National Insurance Co.Ltd., of Hon’ble Gujarat SCDRC Ahmedabad, reported in II (1993) CPJ 854 and also in view of the decision in M/s. Konark Television Limited V/s. Rakesh Garg of Hon’ble Bihar SCDRC, Patna, reported in II ( 1993) CPJ 972. We are of the considered opinion that complainants had failed to prove their case. Therefore the complainants are not entitled for any relief as prayed for and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly points 1 to 3 answered against the complainants.
7. In the result, this complaint is “DISMISSED”. No costs.
Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Forum on this the 8th day of November 2013.
