This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the complainant Y. Rudragouda against Respondent-Aditya Finance Corporation, Raichur. The brief facts of the complaint are as under: The complainant availed loan from Respondent for the purposes of purchase of Motor-cycle Yamaha Crux Bearing No. KA-36/7041 under Loan A/c. No. AFC-0544 by hypothecating his motor-cycle with Respondent. At the time of availment of loan Respondent took original R.C. Book of motor-cycle. The hypothecation is endorsed in R.C. Book. Till today the R.C. Book is with Respondent and hypothecation is continued. For payment of loan Respondent fixed monthly installment of Rs. 1,998/- each. If there was a delay in payment of monthly installments Respondents used to levy late payment charges. As per the terms and conditions of loan, complainant paid (11) monthly installments with late payment charges some time. The complainant paid last monthly installment on 20-04-06. After paying the last installment of loan the complainant demanded Respondent to clear the hypothecation in R.C. Book and for return of original R.C. Book. But the Respondent went on post-poning the same on one or other reason and he did not clear the hypothecation of motor-cycle and did not hand-over the original R.C. Book. The complainant got issued Legal Notice dt. 10-08-06 to Respondent through RPAD which was served on 14-08-06 vide postal acknowledgement. But the Respondent did not give the R.C. Book and did not reply to the said notice. The Respondent has omitted to do an act which he ought to have been done. This omission of act amounts to deficiency of service by the Respondent to the complainant. Hence for all these reasons the complainant has sought for direction to the Respondent to cancel the hypothecation of motor-cycle and to return the original R.C. book of motor-cycle to the complainant and also to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- towards damages. 2. The Respondent Corporation represented by its G.P.A. holder appeared through counsel and filed the written statement as under: The allegation that the complainant has cleared the loan amount and demanded for R.C. Book and that the Respondent dodged to return the R.C. Book etc., are in-correct. At the time of purchase of motor-bike in-question the complainant was to pay the down-payment of Rs. 19,100/- and Rs. 250/- towards stamp duty and in all he was to make down payment of Rs. 19,350/- and since the complainant had shortage of Rs. 2,350/- he made only down payment of Rs. 17,000/- and for the short payment of Rs. 2,350/- the complainant requested the Respondent that he would make the payment at the end of agreement period and to take back the vehicle documents from this Respondent. To this effect the complainant has given a letter dt. 29-04-05 addressing the Manager Aditya Finance Corporation. Believing the complainant, as he was an old customer, Respondent allowed the complainant to get the vehicle from the show-room at Sindhnoor. Though the complainant had made payment of monthly installments but the initial due down-payment amount of Rs. 2,350/- is yet to be paid. After the receipt of Legal Notice of the complainant, this Respondent made personal request and though Telephone to clear dues of Rs. 2,350/- being the balance down payment amount for which the complainant requested time and for that reason this Respondent did not answer to the legal notice but was surprised to receive the copy of the complaint through this Forum. The say of the complainant that the Respondent is with-holding the vehicle documents and that there is a deficiency of service and the complainant suffered mental agony and financial loss is not only false but invented for filing this false complaint. The cause of action loss is fictitious one and claim of Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation has no base. This Respondent is ready and willing to hand-over the vehicle documents to the complainant, if the complainant to make the payment of Rs. 2,350/- along with reasonable interest from 29-04-05. Hence for all these reasons the complainant has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost. 3. During the course of enquiry the complainant has filed his sworn-affidavit by way of examination-in-chief and has got marked in all (11) documents at Ex.P-1 to P-11. In-rebuttal the Accounts Manager of the Respondent Corporation has filed his sworn-affidavit as evidence and has got marked two documents at Ex.R-1 & R-2. 4. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the records. The following points arise for our consideration and determination: 1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency of service in not cancellation hypothecation of the motor-cycle and for not returning the original R.C. Book of the vehicle, as alleged.? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for? 5. Our finding on the above points are as under:- 1. In the affirmative. 2. As per final order for the following. REASONS POINT NO.1:- 6. There is no dispute that the complainant had obtained loan from Respondent for purchase of Motor-cycle Yamaha Crux Bearing No. KA-36/7041 by hypothecating his vehicle and the R.C. Book was given to the custody of Respondent and the loan was to be repaid in monthly installments of Rs. 1,998/- and in-case of delayed payment Respondent used to levy late payment charges. It is the case of the complainant that as per the terms and conditions of loan he has paid (11) monthly installments with late-payment- charges some time and last monthly installment paid is on 20-04-06 and after payment of the last installment of loan he demanded to clear the hypothecation in R.C. Book and demands to return of original R.C. Book. But the Respondent did not respond in-spite of legal notice issued to him. 7. The Respondent has denied this allegation of the complainant by contending that at the time of purchase of motor-bike the complainant was to pay the down payment of Rs. 19,100/- and Rs. 250/- towards stamp duty in all he was to make down payment at Rs. 19,350/-. Since the complainant had shortage of Rs. 2,350/- had made only down payment of Rs. 17,000/- and for the payment of Rs. 2,350/- the complainant requested that he would make payment at the end of agreement period and to take back the vehicle documents to this effect the complainant has given a letter dt. 29-04-05 addressing the Manager of the Respondent Corporation. Believing the complainant as he was an old customer he was allowed to take the vehicle from the show-room at Sindhanoor. Though the complainant had made payment of monthly installments the initial due down payment of Rs. 2,350/- is yet to be paid. After the receipt of legal notice of the complainant this Respondent asked the complainant personally and through telephone to clear the amount of Rs. 2,350/- being the balance down payment amount for which the complainant requested time and for that reason this Respondent did not answer to the legal notice but was surprised to receive the copy of the complaint through this Forum. The allegation of the complaint that the Respondent with holding the vehicle documents and there is a deficiency of service etc., are all false and denied. 8. The complainant has produced (11) documents out of which Ex.P-1 to P-9 are Loan Payment Receipt for the month of July-2005 to December-2005 and February-2006 to April-2006. Ex.P-10 is the Copy of the Legal Notice dt. 10-08-06. Ex.P-11 is the Postal Acknowledgement dt. 14-08-06. Out of (9) Loan Payment Receipts, Ex.P-1 dt. 26-07-05 & Ex.P-6 dt. 31-12-05 show the payment of Rs. 3,996/- each and remaining (7) Receipts show payment of Rs. 1,998/- for respective months. This in-turn shows the payment of entire (11) monthly installment at the rate of Rs. 1,998/- by the complainant even some of them have been paid with delayed payment-charges. 9. The Respondent Corporation has filed Extract of statement of Loan Account of the complainant-Y.Rudragouda A/c. Bearing No. AFC-0544 at Ex.R-2. This statement Ex.R-2 tallies with the Receipts produced at Ex.P-1 to P-9 and it further shows the total repayment of Rs. 22,532/- including delayed payment charges. The Respondent has produced one letter of the complainant dt.29-04-05 at Ex.R-1 to show that the complainant had undertaken to pay Rs. 2,350/-. This letter at Ex.R-1 interalia shows that at the time of purchase of vehicle the complainant was having Rs. 17,000/- and shortage of Rs. 2,350/- in-order to pay Rs. 19,350/- and for which he gave this letter of undertaking to pay the shortage amount of Rs. 2,350/- at the end of agreement period. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the complainant there is Loan account of the complainant maintained by the Respondent Corporation produced at Ex.R-2. In this Loan account at Ex.R-2 there is no whisper of outstanding dues of Rs. 2,350/- from the complainant especially when according to the Respondent, at the time of purchase of vehicle the complainant paid only Rs. 17,000/- by leaving outstanding dues of Rs. 2,350/- and for which he gave letter of undertaking vide Ex.R-1. When according to the Respondent Corporation the complainant had shortage of Rs. 2,350/- in-order to make full payment of Rs. 19,350/- at the time of purchase of vehicle in the first instance, then in the natural course of events the Respondent Corporation could have recovered the said outstanding dues amount in the subsequent loan installment at a stretch or by making easy installment of the said outstanding dues along with loan installments. But the loan account of complainant at Ex.R-2 maintained by the Respondent in the usual course of business do not disclose a single word of outstanding dues which creates a strong doubt about the genuineness of the letter at Ex.R-1, as rightly argued by the learned counsel for the complainant. Even the Respondent was not dare-enough to reply to the legal notice by stating the story of outstanding dues of Rs. 2,350/. When loan account of the complainant maintained by the Respondent Corporation does not show the outstanding dues of Rs. 2,350/- then how can it be said that the complainant had made short payment by leaving outstanding dues of Rs. 2,350/- in the first instance at the time of purchase of vehicle which is against the natural events of loan account transactions maintained by the Finance Corporations like the Respondent. So it follows that the Respondent Corporation has failed to establish the outstanding dues of Rs. 2,350/- from the complainant. Consequently the act of the Respondent in not returning the original R.C. Book by canceling the hypothecation of vehicle, amounts to deficiency in service by the Respondent Corporation. Hence the complainant has proved deficiency in service by the Respondent so Point No-1 is answered in the affirmative. POINT NO.2:- 10. The complainant has sought for returning of R.C. Book by canceling the hypothecation of motor-cycle and for payment of compensation of Rs. 5,000/-. In-view of our discussion and finding on Point NO-1 we hold that the complainant is entitled for the return of original R.C. Book from the Respondent along with compensation of Rs. 1,000/- including cost of litigation. In this view of the matter we pass the following order: ORDER The complaint of the complainant is allowed in part. The Respondent Company shall return original R.C. book of the motor-cycle Bearing No. KA-36/7041 by canceling of the said vehicle to the complainant along with compensation of Rs. 1,000/- including cost of litigation. The Respondent shall comply this order within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Office to furnish certified copy of this order to both the parties forth with free of cost. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 22-03-07) Sd/- Sri. N.H. Savalagi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Pampannagouda, Member District Forum-Raichur. On leave. Smt.Kavita Patil, Member. District Forum-Raichur
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
