Per Shri A.Z.Khwaja, Hon’ble Presiding Member.
1. Appellant Ramlal Yadao has preferred the present appeal challenging the order dated 23/06/2015 passed by the learned Additional District Consumer Forum, Nagpur in Consumer Complaint No.43/2013 whereby the consumer complaint filed by the present appellant came to be allowed. (The appellant and respondent shall be referred by their original nomenclature).
2) Short facts leading to the present appeal may be narrated as under. :-
3) Complainant Ramlal Swamiprasad Yadao resident of Nagpur had purchased one old truck of Tata make bearing registration No.CG-06-B-2269 from one Gurmitsingh Ghuglani for price of Rs.6,75,000/- out of which the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.1,95,000/- in cash and for making payment of the remaining amount, the complainant had taken loan of Rs.4,80,000/- from opposite party No.1 Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd on 28/02/2011. Complainant has alleged that the opposite party No.1 had taken his signatures on blank agreement as well as documents and copy of the said agreement and the documents were also not supplied to the complainant. Complainant was not informed regarding the rate of interest. Complainant was asked to pay the first installment of Rs.22,365/- and to pay the remaining 35 installments of Rs.19,707/- amounting to Rs.6,92,403/-. Complainant thereafter has deposited installments in the sum of Rs.20,000/- amounting to Rs.2,13,870/-.
4) On 13/12/2012 complainant went to office of the opposite party to ask for the statement of accounts and same was supplied to the complainant. Complainant has alleged that he was issued three receipts of Rs.20,000/- each, but all the three receipts do not bear any date of payment made by complainant and only dates 04/05/2011, 05/06/2011 and 07/07/2011 were mentioned. Complainant was issued two receipts for bearing date 04/05/2011 though the complainant had paid the amount of Rs.20,000/- only once, which shows that there were irregularities in the maintenance of account by the opposite parties. Subsequently also though the complainant was paying the installments from time to time, the statement of accounts were not supplied to him. Complainant has also alleged that his name Ramlal Swamiprasad Yadao was also wrongly entered in the agreement as Ramlal Mulchand Yadao. Complainant brought this fact to the knowledge of the opposite party, but no corrections were made. Complainant has further alleged that the opposite party did not pay the installments regarding insurance during the period from 28/02/2011 to 27/02/2014 and on the contrary the complainant was informed that the Insurance policy has come to be cancelled since the installments were not paid regularly. Complainant further alleged that though he was resident of Nagpur he was shown as resident of Bhanpuri, District Raipur. Complainant has contended that the opposite party has also not supplied the details of the loan account and so the opposite party has indulged in an unfair trade practice amounting to deficiency in service. Complainant was therefore compelled to file the complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
5) Opposite party has resisted the complainant by filing written statement. Opposite party has admitted the fact that the complainant had purchased the old truck for price of Rs.6,75,000/- and for this purpose he had also availed of loan of Rs.10,80,000/-. Opposite party has also admitted that the complainant had also executed an agreement of loan on 28/02/2011 and had agreed to repay the loan in installments. Opposite party has categorically denied that any false or bogus receipts came to be issued bearing dates 04/05/2011, 05/06/2011 and 07/07/2011. On the contrary, opposite party has clarified that as per practice earlier temporary receipts bearing No.AD-347124 dated 04/05/2011 came to be issued and thereafter another computerized receipts came to be issued for the same payment of Rs.20,000/-. Opposite party has also submitted that although there was error in the full name of the complainant the same was also corrected and copy of the fresh Agreement was also issued. Opposite party has denied that the complainant had made payments of Rs.20,000/- on two different dates. Opposite party has also denied that the copies of the agreement or statement of loan accounts was also not supplied to the complainant. Opposite party has also taken plea that the complainant had also failed to pay the premium regarding insurance from 28/02/2011 to 27/02/2014. Opposite party No.1 has further denied that it had given any threat to the complainant that in case the out standing arrears of installments were not paid by the complainant, the vehicle namely Tata Truck would be seized. Opposite party has taken specific plea that the complainant had taken loan for commercial purpose and he had also failed to pay the installments. Opposite party has not indulged in any deficiency in service and so the complaint filed by the complainant Ramlal Yadao is not tenable in law and deserves to be dismissed with costs.
6) The learned District Consumer Forum, Nagpur thereafter went through the contents of the complaint as well as the evidence adduced by the complainant and that of opposite party. The District Consumer Forum, Nagpur also went through the written notes of argument filed by both the parties. After appreciating the evidence adduced on record, the District Consumer Forum, Nagpur came to the conclusion that the opposite party/Shriram Transport Finance Company had not only supplied the documents as demanded by the complainant, but thereafter had also duly corrected the name of the complainant in the records. The District Consumer Forum, Nagpur also came to the conclusion that there was no deficiency in service on its part and so the complainant Ramlal Yadao was not entitled for the relief claimed in the complaint. Accordingly the District Consumer Forum, Nagpur dismissed the complaint by order dated 23/06/2015. Against this impugned order dated 23/06/2015 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Nagpur, the present appellant has come up in appeal.
7) We have heard the learned advocate for the appellant as well as advocate Mr.Sachin Jaiswal for respondent. We have also gone through written notes of argument submitted by the learned advocates for the appellant as well as respondent.
8) Learned advocate for the appellant has challenged the impugned order dated 23/06/2015 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Nagpur on several counts. Firstly, it is submitted on behalf of appellant that the appellant was not at all supplied copy of agreement of loan dated 28/02/2011, but the Shri Sachin Jaiswal, learned advocate for the respondent has pointed out before us that copy of agreement with the opposite party was duly supplied to the complainant and even the contents of the agreement were explained to the complainant. Appellant has also taken a plea that his signatures were taken on blank agreement of loan as well as on blank receipts, but this contention does not at all appeal to reason that the complainant/appellant who was a business men would put his signature on blank documents like Agreement of Loan.
9) Secondly, the learned advocate for the appellant has also submitted that the opposite party had obtained the loan installment of Rs.20,000/- on two occasions. In other words, complainant was compelled to make double payment in respect of same installment. In this regard, the learned advocate for the appellant has drawn our attention to two receipts bearing the date 04/05/2011. First receipt is bearing the No.AD 0347124 and the same bears the date 04/05/2011. Second receipt bearing No.AA 3605973 also bears the date 04/05/2011. We have gone through both these receipts. Shri Sachin Jaiswal, learned advocate for the opposite party/respondent has pointed out that the first copy was only an advance copy and thereafter a computerized receipt was also issued. We have gone through both these copies and we find that both the receipts are regarding the same payment of Rs.20,000/- from complainant Ramlal Yadao. We therefore do not find any force in this submission that complainant was force to make double payment.
10) Thirdly, the appellant has also taken a plea that though the full name of the complainant was Ramlal Swamiprasad Yadao, the name of complainant was wrongly written in the agreement as Ramlal Mulchand Yadao. In this regard opposite party has also placed on record copy of corrected agreement and the same clearly shows that the name of complainant was duly corrected and the same was also supplied to the complainant. In view of these documents, this contention raised by the appellant does not survived for our consideration.
11) Lastly, it is also contended on behalf of appellant/complainant that the respondent/opposite party had also given a threat to seized the truck, but in this regards the learned District Consumer Forum, Nagpur has also gone through the papers on record and thereafter has given findings that the complainant had not paid the arrears of installments and loan amount was still outstanding. The learned District Consumer Forum, Nagpur has rightly pointed out that in case the complainant continues to pay the loan installments regularly, the question of seizure of the vehicle namely Truck would not arise at all.
12) In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we are unable to accept the submissions advanced on behalf of appellant and we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings given by the learned District Consumer Forum, Nagpur and so we pass the following order.
// ORDER //
- The appeal is dismissed.
- Appellant to bear his own cost as well as cost of respondent.
- The copy of order be furnished to both parties free of cost..
