BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri. S. Chinnaiah, B.A. B.L., I/C President
And
Smt. C.Preethi, M.A.LL.B., Lady Member
Friday the 29TH day of February, 2008
C.C.No. 163/07
Between:
Smt. A. Padmavathi, W/o. A. Subbaiah Babu,
Business, R/o. D.No.45/202-1, Ashok Nagar, Kurnool.
… Complainant
Versus
Ashok Leyland Finance, ( A division of Indusind Bank Limited), Represented by its Branch Manager,
D.No.66-65- 1st Floor, S.V. Complex, Kurnool.
… Opposite Party
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. Syed Shafaqath Hussain, Advocate, Kurnool, for the complainant, and Sri. P. Siva Sudharshan, Advocate, Kurnool for opposite party and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
ORDER
(As per Smt . C. Preethi, Lady Member)
C.C.No.163/07
1. This consumer complaint of the complainant is filed U/S 12 of C.P.Act, 1986 seeking a direction on opposite party to refund the excess amount of Rs.2,150 with 24 % interest P.A. to return the original RC book and key of the vehicle bearing No.AP 21 J 3415, to issue a clearance certificate in respect of said loan transaction to pay Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony and cost of the complaint.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that the complainant purchased a two wheeler HHPP Hero Honda bearing No.AP 21 J 3415 on 27-3-2004 by obtaining a loan for Rs.39,800/-from opposite party, which is payable in 24 monthly installments. The opposite party retained one of the original key and original RC book with it. There after, the complainant
paid the installments regularly and in fact she paid an amount of Rs.2,150/- in excess to opposite party and the last payment of installment was made on 21-3-2006. As seen from the statement of cash flow details and IHM details given by opposite party an amount of Rs.2,150/- was paid in excess to opposite party, which is to be refunded to the complainant. In spite of several requests the opposite party did not refund the said amount and did not return the original RC book and key of the vehicle till today. Being vexed on 2-7-2007 the complainant got issued legal notice to opposite party calling upon opposite party to refund the excess amount of Rs.2,150/-, even though the opposite party received the notice on 3-7-2007, there was no response from it. Hence, the complainant was forced to approach the forum for redressal.
3. In support of her case the complainant relied on the following documents viz., (1) a bunch of 11 payment receipts, (2) statement dated 10-7-2006 as to the settlement of accounts, (3) installments details and (4) office copy of legal notice dated 2-7-2007 along with postal acknowledgments and postal receipt, besides to the chief affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of her complaint averments and the above documents are marked as Ex.A1 to A4 for its appreciation in this case.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite party appeared through their standing counsel
and contested the case and filed counter.
5. The counter of opposite party denies the complaint as not maintainable either in law or on facts but admits that the complainant has obtained finance from them as to the purchase of Hero Honda two wheeler. Before taking the loan the complainant accepted all the conditions and also executed an agreement in favour of opposite party. As the complainant was a chronic defaulter in payment of installments, most of the payment are made only after repeated demands by the opposite party, only on that ground the complainant filed this false case to harass the opposite party. As per the accounts statement of the opposite party the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1600/- only and the opposite party, also prepared a D.D bearing No.627009 dated 20-7-2007 for Rs.1600/- payable at Indus Ind Bank, Kurnool. The staff of opposite party personally visited the complainant’s house and requested the complainant to receive the D.D and key and other relevant papers of the vehicle from opposite party, but the complainant did not approach the opposite parties to receive them. The opposite party also did not receive the notice dated 2-7-2007 from the complainant. Immediately after the completion of loan the opposite party cancelled the hypothecation agreement and addressed a letter dated 2-8-2007 to the regional transport office for cancellation of hire purchase endorsement. Today, also the opposite party is ready to return the D.D,key and vehicle documents to the complainant, but in spite of that the complainant with personal grudge filed this frivolous complaint and is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs U/S 26 of C.P.Act.
6. The opposite party in support of his case relied on the following documents viz., (1) Xerox copy of D.D dated 20-7-2007 for Rs.1600/- , (2) installment account of the complainant and (3) letter dated 02-8-2007 of opposite party addressed to RTA Kurnool, besides to the counter affidavit of opposite party in reiteration of his counter averments and the above documents are marked as Ex.B1 to B3 for its appreciation in this case.
7. Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the complaint is entitled alleging deficiency of service on part of opposite parties.?
8. It is the case of the complainant that she purchased a Hero Honda two wheeler bearing No.AP21 J 3415 on 27-3-2004 by obtaining a loan of Rs.39,800/- from opposite party. At the time of sanction of said loan the opposite party retained one original key and RC book and the complainant has to repay the loan amount in 24 monthly installments. The legal dispute between the parties lies in a narrow compass. In this case the complainant is claiming Rs. 2,150/- paid in excess and relied on Ex.A1 to A4. It is also her case that she claimed the said amount from the opposite party issuing a legal notice under Ex.A4. She filed Ex.A4 signed postal acknowledgement for sending Ex.A4 legal notice. Thus she is claiming Rs.2,150/- paid in excess.
9. On the other hand, the opposite party is disputing the claim of the complainant. As per the account statement of the opposite party the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1600/- only from the opposite party and the opposite party also prepared a demand draft on 20-7-2007 under Ex.B1 drawn in favour of complainant. Opposite party also filed certain documents in support of his case.
10. Considering the circumstance of the case, the legal battle between the parties lies in the narrow compass. The difference of amount between the parties is only Rs.500/- . The complainant though claiming Rs.2,150/- in excess payment, prima facie did not filed relevant material to convince her stand. Any how, the opposite party is taking a firm stand that complainant is entitled for Rs.1600/- only and also obtained demand draft under Ex.B1 dated 20-7-2007. Now it is the case of the opposite party that actually the complainant do not know that she actually paid the excess amount. The opposite party himself calculated the amount before cancellation of the agreement and informed the complainant through EX.A2 and Ex.A3 that D.D for Rs.,1600/- was prepared, but the complainant did not approach the opposite party to receive the said D.D and original keys. However, after considering rival contentions and the material available on record, it is very difficult to place reliance on the contention of the complainant and that it can be said that in order to complete the dispute between the parties, the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1600/- only. However, as there is lapse of time in payment, we are inclined to award Rs.250/- towards compensation and Rs.250/- towards costs of this complaint. Thus, in all the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.2,100/- (Rs.1600/- + Rs.250 + Rs. 250/-).
11. It is submitted by the opposite party that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint and the complainant could not move to the consumer forum for redressal of her grievance arising out of breach of contract, where relationship between parties is that of debtor and creditor and as such the complainant has to seek remedy in a civil court. In support of its contention relied on the decisions (1) I 2006 CPJ Pg 614 Rajasthan State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Jaipur and (2) I 2004 Pg 12 National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, New Delhi.
12. We are of the opinion that the contention of the opposite party is not convincing and the decisions relied by the opposite party are not applicable to the facts of the present case for the reason, in the present case the dispute between the parties is only meager in nature. On the other hand, the opposite party also after arriving to a sum of Rs.1600/- prepared D.D infavour of complainant. Further, the opposite party also prepared to hand over the keys and relevant record of the vehicle to the complainant. Hence, from the above what appears is that the opposite party collected Rs.1600/- only in excess to the loan amount which has to be returned to the complainant by the opposite party.
13. To sum up, the above discussion, the opposite party collected Rs.1600/- in excess to the loan amount sanctioned. Hence, the said amount has to be returned to the complainant and as the opposite party did not settle the account of the complainant, the complainant is entitled to compensation. The complainant in this case claiming Rs.25,000/- as compensation, which is on higher side. In our considered view and circumstances of the case, and in view of the discussion supra granting of Rs.250/- towards compensation is quite reasonable. As the complainant was driven to the forum for redressal, the complainant is entitled to the costs of Rs.250/-.
14. In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite party liable to refund to the complainant the amount of Rs.1600/- and to return the original RC book and key of the vehicle bearing No.AP 21 J 3415 and to issue a clearance certificate in respect of loan transaction and further directed to pay a sum Rs.250/- towards compensation and Rs.250/- towards costs of the complaint. The opposite party is further directed to comply with the above award within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this is the 29th day of February, 2008.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER I/C PRESIDNET
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined
For Complainant: For Opposite parties
- Nil- -Nil-
Documents marked
For the Complainant:
Ex.A-1. A bunch of 11 payment receipts.
Ex.A-2. Statement dated 10-7-2006 as to the settlement
of accounts.
Ex.A-3 Installments details.
Ex.A-4. Office copy of legal notice dated 02-7-2007
along with postal acknowledgements and postal receipt.
For the opposite parties:
Ex.B1 Xerox copy of D.D. dated 20-7-2007 for Rs.1600/-
Ex.B2. Installment account of the complainant.
Ex.B3. Letter dated 02-8-2007 of opposite party
Addressed to RTA Kurnool.
By the Forum:
-Nil- Sd/-
I/C PRESIDENT
Copy to:-
- Sri. Syed Shafaqath Hussain, Advocate,
Kurnool for the complainant.
- Sri. P. Siva Sudharshan, Advocate,
Kurnool for the opposite party.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on :
Copy was delivered to parties:
