By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President:

 

            The case of the complainant is as follows: The complainant had purchased a Tractor cum Trailer bearing No.KL-8S/4505 for his livelihood purpose from the 2^nd respondent, which is the branch office of the first respondent. The petitioner purchased this vehicle on 29.6.2001 for Rs.3,57,000/- after paying 15% of the purchase price and remitting the balance amount in equal instalments. The petitioner had paid the tax and insurance of this vehicle and had taken the road permit also. The petitioner had been regularly paid the instalments without any default. The petitioner paid more amount on each instalment than actually required. The petitioner had paid a total amount of Rs.2,27,894/- till 29.5.2003 which includes the initial payment of 15% of the total cost of the vehicle. Later the respondents did not give proper acknowledgment for the payments made and started to issue receipts without proper dates and particulars. Towards some instalment payments no receipt was given. When the complainant started to pressurize the respondents to give proper statements of accounts before making the rest payments, the respondents in order to harass the petitioner filed a criminal case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act at Chennai, using the cheques that the petitioner had given as security while availing the H.P. loan. The respondents also forcefully took away the vehicle. They have no right to do so. Hence this complaint.

 

            2. The averments in the counter are in brief as follows: It is incorrect to say that complainant had purchased the tractor from second respondent. There was a hire purchase agreement between the petitioner and respondents to purchase the tractor cum trailer for Rs.3,87,750/-. As per the H.P. agreement the complainant had to pay Rs.10,770/- as monthly instalments. There were 36 total instalments. But after the payment of some instalments the complainant defaulted payment and several times wanted to repayment through letters and through officials of respondents. At last the vehicle was repossessed by the respondents. As per the letter from complainant the vehicle was returned to the complainant. Still he committed defaults and the vehicle was seized and sold to another person after inviting quotation for Rs.1,50,000/-. There is no loss sustained to complainant and in fact loss was sustained to respondents due to the act of complainant. Hence dismiss the complaint.

 

            3. The points for consideration are:

 

(1)   Is there any unfair trade practice committed by respondents?

(2)   If so, reliefs and costs.

 

            4. The evidence consists of Exts. P1 series to P4 and Exts. R1 to R17.

 

            5. Points-1 & 2: The case of complainant is getting compensation for the alleged unjust act of respondents. The case in brief is that he had purchased a Tractor cum Trailer

by getting finance from the respondent Company. He has obtained Rs.3,57,000/- from the respondents and some amount paid. Later he failed to pay the entire amount and the respondents repossessed the vehicle. According to the complainant the respondents did not give him proper receipts and some payments did not acknowledge also.

 

            6. The respondents filed a detailed counter and stated that as per the Hire Purchase agreement the complainant had to pay Rs.10,777/- as monthly instalments and total instalments were 36. But he had paid only Rs.1,59,820/- and the balance amount did not pay and the vehicle was repossessed by them. 

 

            7. The complaint is filed to get return of the vehicle and issuance of receipts. He also claims costs and compensation.

 

            8. According to the complainant he had paid a total amount of Rs.2,27,894/- till 29.5.03 and which includes the initial payment of 15% of the total cost. The vehicle had purchased on 29.6.01 for Rs.3,57,000/-. According to the respondents, they had provided Rs.3,87,750/- as hire charge. According to them complainant had remitted only Rs.1,59,820/-. The complainant produced Ext. P1 series of receipts to show the payments and as per those receipts there were payments of Rs.1,72,394/- . The respondents produced two receipt books to show the payments and some copies of receipts also produced. The copy of receipts, which are marked as Ext. R16 series show the payment of some amount. According to the complainant, he had paid Rs.2,27,894/-, but no document produced by either side to show it. He has also stated that the respondents did not give proper acknowledgements for the payment and failed to issue receipt without proper dates and particulars. He further stated for some instalments no receipt was given. He simply averred these matters very casually and did not even mention the date of payment. There are letters from him to the respondents seeking time for payment. He also sent telegram to the respondents to adjourn the sale of vehicle. More over the payment of Rs.50,000/- made by him through cheque was also dishonoured and criminal action taken against him. These are the evidences showing the defaults on the part of complainant and establishes that there were unpaid instalments. So the balance amount to be remitted by the complainant and no excuse deserves. The respondents forcibly taken the vehicle and resold it without initiating legal action against the comploainant. This act does not deserve any justification. Any way the unfortunate things were happened. 

 

9. According to the respondents, they repossessed the vehicle due to the failure of instalment payments. The complainant has no case that he hadremitted the entire instalment. So he is liable top pay the balance amount he is bound to pay. He does not entitle for any relief sought. He is stated in the complaint that in order to harass him a criminal case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act was filed by using the cheques he had given as security while availing the Hire Purchase loan. Ext. R10 is the notice sent to him by the respondent for dishonour of cheques. There are letters sent by him to the respondents showing his inability to pay the money and the justification put by him for criminal action also will not lie. Ext. R7 series are the letters returned as refused by complainant. There are four letters sent by the respondents and refused by the complainant. He did not even accept it and did not try to react. So there are wilful defaults on his part. So the complainant is liable to pay the balance amount to the respondents.

 

            9. In the result, complaint is dismissed.