Authorized Signatory V/S Marulasiddaradhya H.J. - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Bangalore Urban

CC1415/2008

Marulasiddaradhya H.J. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Authorized Signatory - Opp.Party(s)

In person

28 Jul 2008

ORDER

BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSLAL FORUM, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA STATE.
Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cauvery Bhavan, 8th Floor, BWSSB Bldg., K. G. Rd., Bangalore-09.
consumer case(CC) No. CC1415/2008

Marulasiddaradhya H.J.						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Authorized Signatory						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED: 25.06.2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 28th JULY 2008 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SRI. SYED USMAN RAZVI MEMBER SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 1415/2008 COMPLAINANT Sri. Marulasiddaradhya. H.J. S/o. H.M. Jayamangaleswararadhya, Aged about 27 years, Residing at No. 171, Sarojashri Nilaya, 2nd Main, 1st Cross, S.I.T. Extension, Tumkur 572 102. V/s. OPPOSITE PARTY Authorized Signatory, TVS Finance and Services Ltd., No. 27/1, Shalimar Plaza M-1, 1st Floor, 10th Cross, Swimming Pool Extension, Palace Guttahalli Main Road, Bangalore 560 003. O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant to direct the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to return the original documents of the vehicle along with the original key and unused cheque for Rs.2,000/-, pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant availed a loan facility from the OP for the purpose of purchase of vehicle bearing No. KA-06-E-8105. In order to repay the loan amount in 10 EMI at the rate of Rs.2,000/-, complainant issued the post dated cheques. An agreement came to be executed between the complainant and the OP on 10.02.2006. At the time of advancing the said loan OP retained the original documents of the vehicle as well as the duplicate key along with the cheque leaves. Complainant is prompt in making payment of all the EMI except the last one. When complainant failed to make payment of the last EMI, agent of the OP came to his house and received the said EMI in cash and passed the receipt on 21.11.2006. Though complainant cleared the entire loan amount, OP failed to return the original documents, duplicate keys and the unused cheque. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant to OP, went in futile. Complainant was even forced to file a Police case, there was no response. He ultimately got issued the legal notice, though it is served on the OP, OP did not reply the same. Thus complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. For no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly. 2. On admission and registration of the complaint, notices were sent to the OP. Though the OP was duly served with a notice, remained absent without any sufficient reason or cause. The absence of the OP does not appears to be as bonafide and reasonable, hence OP is placed ex-parte. 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed his affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP did not participate in the proceedings. Then the arguments were heard. 4. It is the case of the complainant that in order to purchase a vehicle bearing No. KA-06-W-8105 he availed the financial assistance from the OP repayable in 10 instalments at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month. An agreement came to be executed 10.02.2006. In order to repay the said EMI complainant has given the blank cheques to the OP, except one all other cheques were honoured. The last EMI which was not paid is collected by the OP Agent in cash and he passed the receipt on 21.11.2006. That receipt is also produced. 5. It is further contended by the complainant that though he has repaid the entire loan amount inspite of his repeated requests and demands OP who retained the original documents and the duplicate key at the time of sanction of the loan, failed to return the same. Even complainant has approached the Police to sort out the dispute, again there was no response. OP appreciated the promptness in repayment made by the complainant and treated him as a privileged customer, thereby addressed the letter in his favour with a dummy cheque to avail further financial assistance if required without producing any other documents. That speaks to the fairness and honesty of the complainant. But still what made the OP to retain the said original documents, duplicate key, unused cheque evenafter the repayment of the entire loan is not known. Here we find the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. 6. The evidence of the complainant finds full corroboration with the contents of the undisputed documents. There is nothing to discard the sworn testimony of the complainant. It is a quality of evidence that is more important than that of the quantity. The non-appearance of the OP evenafter the due service of the notice leads us to draw an inference that OP admits all the allegations made by the complainant. Complainant for no fault of his, is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. When his repeated requests and demands went in futile, he even caused the legal notice on 10.04.2008. The copy of the legal notice is produced, it is served on the OP. Again there was no response. Under such circumstances we find it is a fit case, wherein the complainant deserves the relief as prayed. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is allowed. OP is directed to return all the original documents of the vehicle No. KA-06-W-8105 along with one original key and an unused cheque for Rs.2,000/- issued by the complainant and pay a compensation of Rs.1,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.500/-. This order is to be complied within 4 weeks from the date of its communication. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 28th day of July 2008.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.

COMPLAINT FILED: 25.06.2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 28th JULY 2008 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SRI. SYED USMAN RAZVI MEMBER SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 1415/2008 COMPLAINANT Sri. Marulasiddaradhya. H.J. S/o. H.M. Jayamangaleswararadhya, Aged about 27 years, Residing at No. 171, Sarojashri Nilaya, 2nd Main, 1st Cross, S.I.T. Extension, Tumkur 572 102. V/s. OPPOSITE PARTY Authorized Signatory, TVS Finance and Services Ltd., No. 27/1, Shalimar Plaza M-1, 1st Floor, 10th Cross, Swimming Pool Extension, Palace Guttahalli Main Road, Bangalore 560 003. O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant to direct the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to return the original documents of the vehicle along with the original key and unused cheque for Rs.2,000/-, pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant availed a loan facility from the OP for the purpose of purchase of vehicle bearing No. KA-06-E-8105. In order to repay the loan amount in 10 EMI at the rate of Rs.2,000/-, complainant issued the post dated cheques. An agreement came to be executed between the complainant and the OP on 10.02.2006. At the time of advancing the said loan OP retained the original documents of the vehicle as well as the duplicate key along with the cheque leaves. Complainant is prompt in making payment of all the EMI except the last one. When complainant failed to make payment of the last EMI, agent of the OP came to his house and received the said EMI in cash and passed the receipt on 21.11.2006. Though complainant cleared the entire loan amount, OP failed to return the original documents, duplicate keys and the unused cheque. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant to OP, went in futile. Complainant was even forced to file a Police case, there was no response. He ultimately got issued the legal notice, though it is served on the OP, OP did not reply the same. Thus complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. For no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly. 2. On admission and registration of the complaint, notices were sent to the OP. Though the OP was duly served with a notice, remained absent without any sufficient reason or cause. The absence of the OP does not appears to be as bonafide and reasonable, hence OP is placed ex-parte. 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed his affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP did not participate in the proceedings. Then the arguments were heard. 4. It is the case of the complainant that in order to purchase a vehicle bearing No. KA-06-W-8105 he availed the financial assistance from the OP repayable in 10 instalments at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month. An agreement came to be executed 10.02.2006. In order to repay the said EMI complainant has given the blank cheques to the OP, except one all other cheques were honoured. The last EMI which was not paid is collected by the OP Agent in cash and he passed the receipt on 21.11.2006. That receipt is also produced. 5. It is further contended by the complainant that though he has repaid the entire loan amount inspite of his repeated requests and demands OP who retained the original documents and the duplicate key at the time of sanction of the loan, failed to return the same. Even complainant has approached the Police to sort out the dispute, again there was no response. OP appreciated the promptness in repayment made by the complainant and treated him as a privileged customer, thereby addressed the letter in his favour with a dummy cheque to avail further financial assistance if required without producing any other documents. That speaks to the fairness and honesty of the complainant. But still what made the OP to retain the said original documents, duplicate key, unused cheque evenafter the repayment of the entire loan is not known. Here we find the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. 6. The evidence of the complainant finds full corroboration with the contents of the undisputed documents. There is nothing to discard the sworn testimony of the complainant. It is a quality of evidence that is more important than that of the quantity. The non-appearance of the OP evenafter the due service of the notice leads us to draw an inference that OP admits all the allegations made by the complainant. Complainant for no fault of his, is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. When his repeated requests and demands went in futile, he even caused the legal notice on 10.04.2008. The copy of the legal notice is produced, it is served on the OP. Again there was no response. Under such circumstances we find it is a fit case, wherein the complainant deserves the relief as prayed. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is allowed. OP is directed to return all the original documents of the vehicle No. KA-06-W-8105 along with one original key and an unused cheque for Rs.2,000/- issued by the complainant and pay a compensation of Rs.1,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.500/-. This order is to be complied within 4 weeks from the date of its communication. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 28th day of July 2008.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.