Telangana

Mahbubnagar

CC/11/51

Lankala Bhooapal Goud S/o Ramaiah - Complainant(s)

Versus

(1) The Branch Manager, Keerthi motors & Car Bazar Keerthi Auto Finance and Another - Opp.Party(s)

Sri M Chennaiah Goud

05 Sep 2011

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM AT MAHABUBNAGAR

Monday, the 5^th day of September, 2011 

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

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

     Smt. D. Nirmala, B.Com., LL.B.,Member

C.C.NO. 51  Of   2011

Between:-

Lankala Bhoopal Goud S/o Ramaiah, age: 45 years, R/o H.No.2-9, Annaram village, Farooqnagar Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

                                               … Complainant

And

1. The Branch Manager, Keerthi Motors & Car Bazar Keerthi Auto Finance,  Beside Maharaja Dabha, N.H.No.7, Shadnagar, Mahabubnagar District. 
2. Shyam Jahawar, Manager of Shyam Auto Finance, Raheem Complex, N.H.No.7, Shadnagar, Mahabubnagar District.

                                       … Opposite Parties

 This C.C. coming on before us for final hearing on 18-8-2011 in the presence of Sri M. Chennaiah Goud, Advocate, Mahabubnagar on behalf of the complainant and Sri N. Ramesh Babu, and Sri G. Ravi Prakash, Advocates, Mahabubnagar for the opposite parties 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 hand over the Qualis to the complainant or return the amount of Rs.2,40,000/- with interest from October, 2008, and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.20,000/- towards costs of the complaint.

2. The averments of the complaint in brief are that:- The opposite parties are running auto finance and sale of vehicles.  The complainant approached the opposite parties for purchasing Qualis vehicle of 2003 model valued Rs.5,30,000/-. In that process, the complainant paid Rs.2,00,000/- towards down payment and obtained remaining costs of Rs.3,30,000/- as loan from the opposite parties and they accordingly entered into an agreement on  5-4-2008 agreeing to repay the loan in 36 monthly installments @ Rs.14,680/- per month.  Thereupon the opposite parties having received the down payment of Rs.2,00,000/- handed over the vehicle to the complainant in the month of May, 2008.  Later the complainant paid a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- to the opposite parties including down payment and installments regularly.  But in the mean time in the month of October, 2008 without any notice or any intimation to the complainant the opposite parties seized the vehicle by force from the custody of the driver of the complainant. After receiving the said information from the driver the complainant approached the opposite parties while questioning the reason for seizure of the vehicle requested the opposite parties to hand over the vehicle to him. But the opposite parties postponed the matter on some pretext or other.  Such act on the part of the opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service. The complainant a poor person paid so much amount of Rs.2,40,000/- for purchasing the vehicle for his livelihood.  The complainant having spent so much of hardened money over the vehicle is suffering with financially and physically and mentally. Even after getting issued legal notice dated 22-10-2010 the opposite parties have neither returned the vehicle nor the amount paid by him. Thus the present complaint is filed for the aforesaid relief.

3. The opposite party No.1 filed counter denying the averments of the complaint and stated that the complainant got purchased the alleged vehicle from Sri Ram Transport Finance Company Limited, Secunderabad and this opposite party only acted as a mediator in between the purchaser and the vendor, that the complainant did not file any documentary evidence to prove that he purchased the vehicle from this opposite party, and that the receipts which are filed by the complainant belong to other transactions and therefore this opposite party is no way concerned with regard to auto finance of the alleged vehicle, and that the complainant is well aware of the said facts but with a malafide intention for wrongful gain filed the present case against this opposite party with all false and unbelievable averments and thus the complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

4. The opposite party No.2 filed memo adopting the counter filed by the opposite party No.1.     

5. Thereupon the complainant in support of his claim filed his affidavit evidence and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-12.  On the other hand, the opposite parties in support of their contentions filed their affidavit evidence and got no documents marked.  

6.  The points for determination now are: 

1. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?
2. Whether is there any deficiency on the part of the opposite parties in rendering service to the complainant as alleged?

    (iii)  Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief sought for by him? 

    (iv)  To what effect? 

7.  It is the very case of the complainant that on 5-4-2008 he made a down payment of Rs.2,00,000/- for purchasing Qualis vehicle of 2003 model by obtaining loan for the remaining costs of Rs.3,30,000/- from the opposite parties, that on receiving the down payment of Rs.2,00,000/- the opposite parties delivered the Qualis vehicle to him in the month of May, 2008.               So, as per the case of the complainant the opposite parties on receiving down payment of Rs.2,00,000/- in the month of April, 2008 delivered the vehicle to him in the month of May, 2008. 

8. Point No.1:- It is the case of the complainant that later the complainant altogether paid Rs.2,40,000/- to the opposite parties including down payment and installments regularly. But the complainant is not specific upto what installment he paid the said Rs.40,000/- besides down payment of Rs.2,00,000/-. That apart, the complainant also not furnished the particulars of the Qualis vehicle such as its registration number, colour of the vehicle etc., except mentioning that it is of 2003 model.  It is no doubt true that the complainant produced certain receipts Exs.A-1 to A-8 said to have been issued by the opposite parties and they are all with different dates between May, 2008 and July, 2008 with different amounts totaling comes to Rs.2,00,000/- only.  The complainant did not produce any proof to show for the remaining amount of Rs.40,000/- said to have been paid by him to the opposite parties.  That apart, it is the contention of the opposite parties that the amount paid under the said receipts pertains to some different transaction in connection with the Quails vehicle No.AP10-AA 0090. So in the absence of furnishing the vehicle number by the complainant either in his complaint or his affidavit evidence the documents Exs.A-1 to A-8 cannot be connected to the alleged transaction between both the parties of the present case and the documents will not help the complainant in any manner for alleging deficiency or unfair trade practice against the opposite parties.

9. It is the specific case of the complainant that though he is regular in payment of the installments but in the month of October, 2008 the opposite parties have seized the vehicle from his possession without any notice or intimation and did not return the vehicle or the amount of Rs.2,40,000/- paid by him inspite of his approach many a times. Except his oral testimony the complainant did not produce any proof in that regard. If really there is a truth in the case of the complainant that the opposite parties have seized the vehicle from his possession without any notice or intimation he ought to have initiated some action against the opposite parties. But in the case on hand it appears from the record that the complainant kept quiet for more than two years and came forward with the present complaint on the ground that he got issued a legal notice to the opposite parties on 22-10-2010 and still the opposite parties have not returned the vehicle to him and so the cause of action commences from 22-10-2010 for the present complaint filed by him on 15-2-2011.  But we are unable to agree with the said contention of the complainant for the reason that keeping quiet for more than two years and issuance of the legal notice after a period of two years will not come to the rescue of the complainant to extend the period of limitation.  If really the complainant had such legal notice at least within two years from the date of the alleged seizure of the vehicle then there is some meaning in the complainant to say that the cause of action arose from the date of such issuance of legal notice. But as stated above, it is the case where the complainant keeping quiet for more than two years even without initiating any action against the opposite parties and coming forward with the present complaint with the legal notice said to have been issued by him will not save limitation to him for filing the present complaint. Furthermore, the complainant without furnishing the particulars of the vehicle number etc., and the date of its seizure by the opposite parties and that too without production of any oral or documentary evidence with regard to the total payment of Rs.2,40,000/- we find that the complainant had not approached this Forum with clean hands that too after the period of limitation.  Hence, for the reasons stated above, we hold that the complaint is not maintainable since it is barred by limitation and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  The point is answered accordingly in favour of the opposite parties and against the complainant.   

10. Point Nos.2 and 3:- In view of the finding given on point No.1 we find that since the very complaint is barred by limitation no detailed discussed is needed in the matter about the ground of deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties as alleged. Hence for the reasons stated above, we hold that the complainant is not entitled for the reliefs sought for by him.  Both the points are answered accordingly in favour of the opposite parties and against the complainant.     

11. Point No.4:- In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No order as to the costs.

        Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 5^th day of September, 2011.    

 

    I agree                                          I agree                                                          

 

 MEMBER                                      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.25.7.2008.

Ex.A-2: Original Estimation, dt.5.4.2008. 

Ex.A-3: Original Receipt, dt.5.4.2008.   

Ex.A-4: Original Receipt, dt.1.5.2008.  

Ex.A-5: Original Receipt, dt.11.5.2008.    

Ex.A-6: Original Receipt, dt.1.5.2008.

Ex.A-7: Original Receipt, dt.27.5.2008.

Ex.A-8: Original Receipt, dt.25.7.2008.

Ex.A-9: Office copy of Legal Notice, dt.22.10.2010.

Ex.A-10: Original Postal Receipt, dt.22.10.2010.

Ex.A-11: Returned Postal Cover.

Ex.A-12: Returned Postal Cover.  

On behalf of OPs.:                   

         - Nil -

 

                                                                                                PRESIDENT                                                                                                                                                                                              

Copy to:-

1. Sri M. Chennaiah Goud, Advocate, Mahabubnagar on behalf of the complainant.

2. Sri N. Ramesh Babu, and Sri G. Ravi Prakash, Advocates, Mahabubnagar for the  

    opposite parties.