CC No.426.2016

Filed on 17.03.2016

Disposed on.23.03.2018

BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BENGALURU– 560 027.

DATED THIS THE 23^rd DAY OF MARCH 2018

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.426/2016

PRESENT:

Sri.  H.S.RAMAKRISHNA B.Sc., LL.B.

        PRESIDENT

             Smt.L.MAMATHA, B.A., (Law), LL.B.

                      MEMBER

                                       V/S

                                     ORDER                             

BY SRI.H.S.RAMAKRISHNA, PRESIDENT

1. This Complaint was filed by the Complainant on 17.03.2016 U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and praying to pass an Order directing the Opposite Parties to pay sum of Rs.54,533/-for the acts and wrongful seizure of his vehicle by the Opposite Parties, to pay sum of Rs.5,000/- for the harassment and unnecessary trouble given to the Complainant on account of illegal methods, acts and omissions and other reliefs. 

2. The brief facts of the complaint can be stated as under:

In the Complaint, the Complainant alleges that the Complainant availed vehicle loan of Rs.11,00,000/- to purchase vehicle bearing No.KA-05/AE-0313.  The said vehicle is a goods vehicle of Eicher make.  As per the terms and conditions of the finance the said sum was repayable to the Opposite Parties in 47 equal installments of Rs.26,620/- to them.  The said Loan Account number being XVFPBGO00000968669.  At the time of financing of the said vehicle the Opposite Parties have taken the signature of the Complainant on various sheets of paper and printed documents and thereafter the loan has been disbursed to him.   The Complainant is totally unaware of the matter printed on the documents and other sheets of paper where the Opposite Party No.1 has taken his signature and he further states that he has not been afforded a copy of the Agreement/s entered into between him and the Opposite Parties.  The Opposite Parties also insisted that the Complainant done should get the insurance done and therefore the insurance amount also had to be paid by him, which as per the customs and trade of the business has to be paid by the financier.  The Complainant has been duly informed and given the information by the Opposite Party that the loan amount as stated above was repayable in 47 equal installments of Rs.26,620/- starting from 1^st June 2013 and the last installment was due and payable on 01.04.2017.    The Complainant has been diligent in paying the installments and he has paid the same as and when they fell due.  As per the schedule the payment has to be made till 01.04.2017, which will be the last payment due to the Opposite Parties.   The Opposite Parties sent a letter to him on 18.09.2015 intimating him that they were enclosing the repayment schedule and also a duly signed Loan Agreement and the Opposite Parties have furnished the repayment schedule in respect of his Agreement.  However the Complainant has not received any such duly signed agreement as stated by the Opposite Parties in their letter cited above and in so far as the schedule of the repayment is concerned it was incorrect as an additional one year had been added by the Opposite Parties as through the loan is repayable till 01.04.2018 while as a matter of fact it is repayable only till 01.04.2017.    The said Welcome letter the Opposite Parties have stated that a sum of Rs.11,10,000/- has been financed while in fact what was agreed to and stated by them was Rs.11,00,000/-.   Therefore an additional sum of Rs.10,000/- has been illegally added by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant’s loan account.  It is also not known as to what was the necessity to send such a letter to the Complainant when the loan has started from June 2013 itself.   The Complainant had sent a reply to the Opposite Parties welcome letter dt.18.09.2015 cited above through an Advocate on 19.10.2015.  In the said reply the Complainant had raised this matter and informed the Opposite Parties that he was not liable to pay any EMI after April 2017 and also called upon them to rectify the mistake and also issue a proper repayment schedule as per the terms agreed between the Complainant and the Opposite Parties.  However the Opposite Parties did not reply the same nor comply with demand made in the said notice. In spite of the reply and actual state of affairs the Opposite Parties got the vehicle of the Complainant seized and unlawfully detained by them through an Agency namely M/s Ruby Enterprises, Bangalore-64 and threatened that they will sell the vehicle.  Therefore, the Complainant approached the Jurisdictional police namely J.P.Nagar Police and finally after having a discussion and much deliberation the Opposite Parties agreed to release the vehicle but they insisted that the Complainant must pay the charges as shown below which he was not required in law to pay.  

1. AFC                        Rs.4,437-00
2. FVC                        Rs.5,031-00
3. Seizure Charges    Rs.7,865-00
4. Seizure Charges    Rs.1,200-00

TOTAL                  Rs.18,533/-

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

 The above payments were paid by the Complainant under duress vide receipt dt.20.11.2015.  Only after the payment of these additional charges which were not liable to be paid by the Complainant and which were occasioned on account of the Opposite Parties illegal seizure of his vehicle, that they released his vehicle.  It is also to be stated that the vehicle was in their illegal custody for 12 days.  Therefore the vehicle could not be issued for the said 12 days i.e., almost half a month and this resulted in loss of income to the Complainant to the tune of Rs.36,000/-.  Apart from the above payments taken by the Opposite Parties, he was subjected to extreme torture, harassment and unnecessary trouble on account of their acts of seizing his vehicle and keeping the vehicle with them for the said 12 days.  These acts are all actionable wrongs committed by them and therefore the Complainant is liable to be compensated for the illegal methods adopted by the Opposite Parties. In so far as the repayment is concerned he has been prompt in doing so and there are no arrears of any kind.  It was only during the time the Opposite Parties started harassing the Complainant and illegally seized his vehicle that the EMI was not paid as he was advised accordingly but subsequently before taking redelivery of the vehicle he has paid the dues and there are no arrears in this regard.  The Complainant issued Legal Notice dt.01.02.2016.  The Opposite Parties are in the receipt of the same.  However they have chosen to ignore the legal notice.  They have replied the same but not complied with the demand in the said legal notice.   Hence this complaint.

3. In response to the notice, the Opposite Parties put their appearance through their counsel and filed their version.  The Opposite Parties in their version pleaded that the complaint is false, frivolous, vexatious which is not maintainable either on law or on facts.  The Complainant approached the Opposite Party Company seeking financial facility by way of a Vehicle Loan and the Complainant upon his entire satisfaction of the terms and conditions which were explained, had filed his application.  The loan was processed and the loan related documents were duly furnished to the Complainant.  Based on the credit profile of the Complainant a sum of Rs.11,10,000/- was sanctioned to be repaid together with finance charges over a period of 59 months in EMI’s as per terms and contract and repayment schedule, the complaint had executed the agreement as principal borrower and had accepted the terms and conditions of the agreement and hence bound by the terms governing the sanction of the loan.  Moreover at the time of disbursement all the loan related documents were furnished to the Complainant.  The averments pertaining to remittance are subject matter of record.  The complaint delayed and prolonged the repayments and hence as per the terms of the agreement for every delayed payment, he is liable to make delayed payment charges.  In fact, as per the terms of the agreement, the Complainant is liable to make prompt repayment, failing which the Opposite Parties are entitle for the repossession of the vehicle.  Accordingly, as the Complainant delayed the repayments, the vehicle was taken possession after complying the prescribed procedures.  After taking possession, due intimation was made to the Complainant to settle the dues and on the payment of the pending dues and after executing an indemnity bond assuring to make prompt repayment, the vehicle was released to the Complainant.  Hence, it is false to say that after approaching the jurisdictional police the Opposite Parties released the vehicle.  As per the agreement, any disputes arising between the parties shall be referred to the sole Arbitrator at Chennai for Arbitration.  As per jurisdiction clause, courts situated at Chennai shall have exclusive jurisdiction to try disputes between the parties.  There is no deficiency in service, no unfair trade practice and as such the Complainant has no cause of action, hence the same may be dismissed. 

4.   The Complainant, Mr.Govinda M.C filed his affidavit by way of evidence and closed his side.  On behalf of the Power of Attorney Holder of the Opposite Parties, the affidavit of one Sri.Ravi T.J has been filed.  Heard the arguments of Complainant.

5.      The points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the Complainant has proved the alleged deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties ?
2. If so, to what relief the Complainant is entitled ?

6.     Our findings on the above points are:-

                POINT (1):-  Negative

POINT (2):-  As per the final Order

REASONS

7. POINT NO.1:-   It is the case of the Complainant that he has availed vehicle loan with Opposite Parties bearing Loan Account No.XVFPBGO00000968669 of Rs.11,00,000/- to purchase goods vehicle of Eicher.  The said loan is repayable in 47 monthly equal installments of Rs.26,620/-.  But the Opposite Parties denied this fact, it is on the burden of the Complainant to establish the same.  The Complainant to prove the above said fact, in his sworn testimony, he has reiterated the same and produced 39 receipts to show that he has regularly repaid the borrowed loan amount and also produced the Welcome Letter addressed by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant.  As looking into the Welcome Letter, it is dt.18.09.2015 it clearly shows that the Complainant borrowed loan of Rs.11,10,000/-.  The said loan is repayable with interest at 14.81 in 59 installments and 1^st installment is from 01.06.2013 and last installment on 01.04.2018.  In this Welcome Letter also clearly mentioned that the payment schedule i.e., starting from 01.06.2013 to 01.04.2018.  Therefore, even as the evidence placed by the Complainant, it falsifies the allegations made in the complaint that the Complainant availed the loan of Rs.11,00,000/- and which is repayable in 47 monthly equal installments and the said loan amount is repayable monthly equal installments of Rs.26,620/-.

8.  It is the further case of the Complainant that at the time of financing of the said vehicle the Opposite Parties have taken the signature of the Complainant on various sheets of paper and printed documents and thereafter the loan has been disbursed to him. Obviously the Complainant is totally unaware of the matter printed on the documents and other sheets of paper where the Opposite Party No.1 has taken his signature and he has not been afforded a copy of the Agreement/s entered into between him and the Opposite Parties.  The Opposite Parties also insisted that the Complainant done should get the insurance done and therefore the insurance amount also had to be paid by him, as per the customs and trade of the business.  The Complainant in order to substantiate this fact, except the interested version, he has not placed any cogent evidence and as stated earlier the Complainant himself produced the Welcome Letter dt.18.09.2015.  In that Welcome Letter, it clearly reflect that the mode of repayment of the loan amount and also the total loan amount borrowed by the Complainant.  In that event, the Complainant ought to have taken steps.  As soon as he received the letter from the Opposite Parties on 18.09.2015 instead of doing so the Complainant was not taken any steps, but the Complainant filed this complaint only after lapse of 6 months i.e., on 17.03.2016.  Furthermore, if the Opposite Parties have not furnished any loan documents at the time of availing the loan, the Complainant ought to have demanded the copy of the loan documents.  Instead of doing so the Complainant has not made any such effort and filed this complaint on 17.03.2016.

9.  The Complainant in his complaint also alleges that the Opposite Parties sent a letter to him on 18.09.2015 intimating him that they were enclosing the repayment schedule and also a duly signed Loan Agreement and the Opposite Parties have furnished the repayment schedule in respect of his Agreement.  However the Complainant has not received any such duly signed agreement as stated by the Opposite Parties in their letter cited above and in so far as the schedule of the repayment is concerned it was incorrect as an additional one year had been added by the Opposite Parties as through the loan is repayable till 01.04.2018 repayable only till 01.04.2017.  In the said Welcome Letter, the Opposite Parties have stated that a sum of Rs.11,10,000/- has been financed by the Complainant was Rs.11,00,000/-.   Therefore an additional sum of Rs.10,000/- has been illegally added by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant’s loan account.  Even to substantiate this, except the interested version of the Complainant, the Complainant has not placed any evidence.  On the other hand, the Complainant himself produced the Welcome Letter dt.18.09.2015 and it is the case of the Complainant that along with the Welcome Letter.  The Opposite Parties contending that they were enclosing the repayment schedule and also a duly signed loan agreement. 

10.  But the Complainant contention is that he has not received any loan agreement which was signed by the Complainant.  If it is so, the Complainant has not received the loan agreement and he received only welcome Letter dt.18.09.2015 and if he has not received any such signed loan agreement as mentioned in the Welcome Letter.  After receiving this Welcome Letter, the Complainant ought to have demanded the Opposite Parties for duly signed loan agreement as mentioned in the Welcome Letter.  Since he has to receive and also he can give a reply.  To this reply letter stating that he has not received any signed loan agreement as mentioned in the Welcome Letter.  But the Complainant has not taken any such steps, thereby it is not proper to accept the contention taken by the Complainant. 

11.  It is further case of the Complainant that in spite of the reply and actual state of affairs the Opposite Parties seized the Complainant’s vehicle and unlawfully detained by them through an Agency namely M/s Ruby Enterprises, Bangalore and threatened that they will sell the vehicle.  Therefore, the Complainant approached the Jurisdictional police namely J.P.Nagar Police and finally after having a discussion and much deliberation the Opposite Parties agreed to release the vehicle but they insisted that the Complainant must pay the charges as shown below.

1. AFC                        Rs.4,437-00
2. FVC                        Rs.5,031-00
3. Seizure Charges    Rs.7,865-00
4. Seizure Charges    Rs.1,200-00

    ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

TOTAL                  Rs.18,533/-

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

 The above payments were paid by the Complainant under duress vide receipt dt.20.11.2015.  Only after the payment of these additional charges which were not liable to be paid by the Complainant and which were occasioned on account of the Opposite Parties illegal seizure of his vehicle, that they released his vehicle.  It is also to be stated that the vehicle was in their illegal custody for 12 days.  Therefore the vehicle could not be used.   In support of his contention, the Complainant in his sworn testimony, he has reiterated the same and produced the Inventory Sheet issued by the Ruby Enterprises it is dt.09.11.2015.  According to this Inventory Sheet, the vehicle bearing No.KA-05-AE-313 it is in the name of the Complainant Sri.M.C.Govinda and also produced the receipt, Agreement dt.20.11.2015.  Under this receipt, the Complainant paid cash of Rs.8,000/-.  As seen from the receipts produced by the Complainant bearing receipt No.11966912 dt.06.06.2013 the Complainant paid Rs.20,200/-.  Under receipt No.11966914 the Complainant paid only Rs.6,600/-, under receipt No.12220245 dt.15.10.23013 the Complainant paid Rs.20,200/- under receipt No.12220257 dt.26.10.2013 the Complainant paid Rs.6,600/-, under receipt No.3037210142 dt.15.02.2014 the Complainant paid Rs.20,000/-, under receipt No.3037210148 the Complainant paid Rs.6,600/-.  Even by looking into the receipts produced by the Complainant himself clearly shows that the Complainant is not regular in repayment of borrowed loan amount.  Admittedly the Complainant ought to have repaid the loan on equal monthly installments of Rs.26,600/- but it is not so as the evidence placed by the Complainant.   For that reason only the vehicle of the Complainant was seized by the Opposite Parties but the seizer of the Complainant’s vehicle is not illegal as alleged by the Complainant.  Therefore, it is not proper to accept the contention of the Complainant. 

12.  In the version, the Opposite Parties have clearly taken a defence that pertaining to remittance are subject matter of record.  The complaint delayed and prolonged the repayments and hence as per the terms of the agreement for every delayed payment, he is liable to make delayed payment charges.  In fact, as per the terms of the agreement, the Complainant is liable to make prompt repayment, failing which the Opposite Parties are entitle for the repossession of the vehicle.   In support of this defence, Sri.Ravi T.J, Power of Attorney Holder of Opposite Party Company, he has reiterated the same and produced the Loan Agreement.  As looking into the Loan Agreement, it is crystal clear that the date of agreement is on 06.05.2013 entered into between the Opposite Parties with the Complainant and furthermore it is clear that the vehicle under this agreement availed a loan of Rs.11,10,000/- the said loan was repayable on 59 monthly equal installments with interest at 14.81% and installment will starting from 01.06.2013 to 01.04.2018.  To this loan agreement, the Complainant as well as Co-borrower one Smt.Nagamma C affixed her signature and also produced the Loan Account Statement pertaining to the Complainant Sri.Govinda M.C.  As looking into this Account Statement, the Complainant is not regular in repayment of the borrowed loan amount, thereby it is proper to accept the defence taken by the Opposite Parties and also this clearly falsifies the contention of the Complainant that the Complainant is not aware of the loan agreement and this alleged loan agreement was not given to the Complainant. 

13.  Since the Complainant is not regular in repayment of the borrowed loan amount.  For that reason, the Opposite Parties since the vehicle belongs to the Complainant as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement, thereby there is no deficiency of service as alleged by the Complainant.  The Complainant fails to prove that there is a deficiency of service or unfair trade practice adopted by the Opposite Parties.  Hence, we answer point No.1 in Negative. 

14. POINT NO.2:-  In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

The Complaint is dismissed.  No cost.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties. 

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Forum on this, 23^rd day of March 2018).

MEMBER                                            PRESIDENT

LIST OF WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS

 Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant:

1. Mr.Govinda M.C., who being the Complainant has filed his affidavit.

 List of documents filed by the Complainant:

1.  Payment Receipts (34 in no).
2. Welcome letter dt.18.09.2015.
3. Legal Notice dt.19.10.2015.
4. Postal Receipt.
5. Inventory sheet issued by Ruby Enterprises.
6. Legal Notice dt.01.02.2016.
7. Postal receipts and acknowledgement card.
8. Reply notice dt.19.02.2016.

Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

1. Sri.Ravi T.J, Power of Attorney Holder of Opposite Party by way of affidavit.

List of documents filed by the Opposite Party:

1. Power of Attorney.
2. Loan Agreement.
3. Account Statement.

MEMBER                                                                 PRESIDENT