Date of Filing: 27.11.2012

                                                                                        Date of Order: 14.08.2018                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – I, HYDERABAD

P r e s e n t­

     HON’BLE Sri P.Vijender, B.Sc. L.L.B.  PRESIDENT.

HON’BLE Smt. Kasturi, B.Com., LLM., MEMBER.

Tuesday, the 14^th day of August, 2018

C.C.No.676/2012

Between

Sri A.Srinivasa Rao,

S/o. A.Narayana Rao,

Aged about 43 years, Occ: Business,

R/o. Plot No.34, Flat No.301,

MNC Homes, Padma Nagar,

Champapet, HYDERABAD-79.                                                   ……COMPLAINANT

And

Bajaj Finance Ltd.,

Rep. by it’s Regional Sale Manager,

Construction Equipment Department,

Regional Sales Manager, Biswaranjan Bastia,

4^th Floor, 6-3-891 and 892, Rajbhavan Road,

Somajiguda, Hyderabad -82.                                                                       …..OPPOSITE PARTY

Counsel for the complainant                :  M/s. T.Ram Mohan Rao  

Counsel for the Opposite Party                  :  M/s. Valluri Rajyalakshmi & Associates

O R D E R

(By Hon’ble Sri P.Vijender, B.Sc., LL.B., President on behalf of the bench)

            This complaint is preferred under Section 12 of C.P. Act of 1986 alleging that the Opposite Party Company failed to return Original Invoice of L & T Komatsu PC-200 bearing machine No.NL 16403, even after entire loan availed by the complainant was repaid and seeking a direction to the Opposite Party Company to return the same and pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and inconvenience and a further sum of Rs.20,000/- towards costs of this complaint.

1. The complainant’s version in a nutshell is that, the Opposite Party Company is in the business of finance and he approached the said company for re-financing on security of vehicle of L & T KOMATSU and Opposite Party has to agreed financed a sum of Rs.15,64,164/- by collecting the original invoice DM No.910801725 dated 24.07.2008 and after the completion of the formalities and execution of an agreement the Opposite Party released entire loan. 
2.         As per the terms and conditions of the Agreement the loan was repayable as installments and the complainant paid all the instalments in advance of the time stipulated for repayment of entire loan amount including the interest in the month of March 2012.  The Opposite Party has issued the Account Statement which discloses about the repayment of the entire loan amount including the interest.  The Opposite Party having received all the installment failed to handover the original invoice of the vehicle which was collected as security for sanction of the loan.  The complainant approached the Opposite Party several times asking to return the original invoice but Opposite Party failed.   This attitude of the Opposite Party quite illegal and amounts to breach of the terms of the loan agreement in between the parties.  The complainant having vexed with the attitude of the Opposite Party Company has got issued a legal notice on 14.09.2012 to Opposite Party asking to return for original invoice.  The Opposite Party Company having received all the installment of the loan failed to return the original invoice which amounts to not only unfair trade practice but also deficiency of service and cheating.  Hence, Opposite Party Company is liable to return the original invoice and pay compensation and costs of this complaint. 
3. The Opposite Party filed a detailed written version stating that, the complainant approached it on 06.10.2010 for the loan facility for the re-finance of L & T Komatsu PC-200-6 and Company agreed it and sanctioned loan of Rs.15,64,164/- and the complainant executed loan facility cum Hypothecation Agreement on 12.10.2010. As per the loan proposal dated 18.10.2010 the complainant was to pay installment of Rs.64,900/- p.m., for a period of 29 months. 
4. The re-financing was done on the basis of Valuation Report of vehicle dated 07.10.2010 issued by Singam Sreenivasa Reddy.  In case of refinancing original invoice copy is not at all required and what is required is only Valuation Report from Government approved valuer, Xerox copy of the invoice and insurance policy issued by a company.  The company has verified the record’s and it shows there is no reference of having taken original invoice from the complainant inrespect of the machinery of the complainant.  In the reply notice got issued to the complainant the company has taken a stand that, it is not found any record showing collection of original invoice from the complainant and the complainant was asked to produce acknowledgment for handing over of the original invoice by him to the Company.
5. The complainant is a business man and having the profit and loss account for financial year ending on 31.03.2009 he got a gross receipt of Rs.32.11 lakhs and fixed assets of Rs.53.59 lakhs.  The complainant availed loan for commercial purpose and it is not exclusively for earning livelihood, as such he is not a consumer and cannot maintain the present complaint before this forum.
6. The complainant can ask for a duplicate copy of invoice from the manufacturer of the vehicle or from the dealer from whom the said machine was purchased.  The machine was originally purchased on 24.07.2008 by one Mr. M.Buchi Reddy and he sold it to complainant.  Hence, it show that, original invoice has travelled from hand to hand, hence he cannot take stand that, he handover the same to the company.  The complainant to extract money from the company filed the present complaint with incorrect facts.  Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.

7.                     In enquiry stage the complainant filed his evidence affidavit reiterating the substance of complaint.  He also got exhibited six (6) documents.  Similarly, the Opposite Party filed evidence affidavit for one Mr. Bharani Kumar stated to the Sales Manager of it and no document is exhibited.

8.         After the concluding of enquiry receiving of written arguments and hearing of the oral submissions this Forum dismissed the complaint on 07.08.2013 and aggrieved by it the complainant has preferred an appeal in F.A.No.999/2013 before the Hon’ble State Commission and same was allowed on 02.09.2016 and remanded the complaint for a fresh disposal in accordance with law after giving opportunity to both sides.  After remand of the complaint the Opposite party did not appear on only the counsel for complainant appeared and submitted arguments a fresh with additional evidence either oral or documentary.

9. On a consideration of material on the record the following points have emerged for consideration: 

1. Whether the complainant delivered the original invoice of the subject machine for securing the loan ?
2. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party as a financier to the complainant ? 
3. To what relief?

10.  Point No.1: There is no dispute with regard to the transaction of the finance extended by the opposite party to complainant on the security of commercial machinery and repayment of the entire loan amount which include the interest. Only dispute is with regard to original invoice which according to the complainant was taken by the Opposite Party company of as a security for extending financial assistance whereas the stand of the Opposite Party is for the purpose of refinance there is no need of original invoice and what is required is valuation report of the commercial machine issued by a government approved, and the Xerox copy of invoice.  Though, the complainant did not mentioned about the execution of an agreement known as facility cum Hypothecation Agreement on 12.12.2010 with Opposite Party the same has been disclosed by Opposite Party in its written version.  In the evidence affidavit also the complainant has not disputed the version of Opposite Party with got execution of facility cum hypothecation agreement.  By the said Hypothecation Agreement the complainant pledged the commercial machinery with Opposite Party as a security for the finance taken by him from the company.  The clear cut stand of the Opposite Party is refinancing was done to the complainant on the basis of valuation report dated 07.10.2010 given by a government approved valuer Singam Sreenivasa Reddy and there is no need to insist for original invoice.  In case of extending financial assistance for the purchase of machinery or vehicle for the first hand the financier insist for the original invoice, apart from hypothecation of the vehicle.  One thing to bear in mind is invoice is not a document of title, so as to say that collecting the same by the financier as a security for sanction of loan.  Even assuming for a movement that invoice is a document of title document still in the instant case it cannot be said that the company insisted on the complainant to deposit the original invoice because as could be seen from the Xerox copy of invoice exhibited as A1 by the complainant it doesnot contain the name of the complainant.  As could be seen from the Ex.A1 the commercial machinery was originally purchased by one Mr. M.Buchi Reddy on 24.07.2008 with vehicle registration No. G3 S Y Y 8658.  Hence, if invoice is considered as a document of title the same is rest with Mr. Buchi Reddy but not with the complainant.  In such circumstance one cannot believe that the Opposite Party had insisted for deposit of original invoice as a condition precedent for sanction of loan.  In the written version itself Opposite Party has categorically stated that the machinery was purchased by Mr. M.Buchi Reddy on 24.07.2008 and thereafter complainant purchased it from Buchi Reddy.  This is also not denied by the complainant in this evidence affidavit.  So, there is no substance in the allegation of the complainant that the Opposite Party has collected original invoice as a security for the extending the financial assistance to him.  In the reply notice Ex.A6 Opposite Party has asked the complainant to furnish an acknowledgment in proof of handed over of original invoice.  Inspite of it the complainant has not produced any material on the record to show that he has handed over the original invoice of the subject commercial machinery to the Opposite Party.  Hence, it can be safely said that, there is no substance in the allegation of the complaint that, he has handing over the original invoice to the Opposite Party and Opposite Party by retaining it even after repayment of the loan amount has caused deficiency of service to the complainant.  Hence, point is answered against the complainant.      

Inview of the above findings it is to follow that the complainant is not entitled for grant of any reliefs.     

11.  Point No.3: In the result, the complaint is dismissed with costs.

            Typed by Typist, corrected and pronounced by us on this the 14^th day of August, 2018.

MEMBER                                                                                           PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 PW1                                                                                         DW1

Sri A.Srinivasa Rao                                                             Mr.K.Bharani Kumar

Exs. filed on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex.A1 is copy of Invoice vide No.120801725 dt. 24.07.2008.

Ex.A2 is copy of account statement issued by the opposite party dt.08.09.2012.

Ex.A3 is copy of legal notice dated 14.09.2012.

Ex.A4 is original postal receipt, dt.14.09.2012.

Ex.A5 is original postal acknowledgment dt.15.09.2012.

Ex.A6 is original reply notice sent by the opposite party, dt.26.09.2012.

Exs filed on behalf of the Opposite party

Nil.

MEMBER                                                                                           PRESIDENT