BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri.K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B President
And
Smt. C.Preethi, M.A.LL.B., Lady Member
Friday the 17th day of April, 2009
C.C.No. 135/08
Between:
V.Padma Sri, W/o.V. Dharmanjaya Reddy ,
H.No.45-24K-58, Ashok Nagar, Kurnool-518 003. … Complainant
Versus
Indus Ind Bank Limited, Represented by its Branch Manager,
S.V.Complex,D.No.40-581-G-13, 1st Floor, Kurnool-518 004.
… Opposite party
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.M.Azmathulla , Advocate, for the complainant, and Sri.Y.Srinivasulu, Advocate, for the opposite party and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As Per Sri. K.V.H.Prasad, President)
C.C.No.135/08
1. This case of the complainant is filed U/S 12 of C.P. Act, seeking direction on the opposite party to release/ repossess the vehicle bearing No. AP 21 X 1862 to the complainant in good condition as it was at the time of its seizure by opposite party in the month of December, 2006 or in alternative to pay to the complainant Rs.13,65,000/- as cost of the vehicle with an interest at 12% p.a from the date of seizure , pay to complainant Rs.50,000/- each as compensation for mental agony and damages for the reputation and cost of the case along with other reliefs which the exigencies of the case demand , alleging the purchasing of the above said vehicle by the complainant under loan agreement dated 31-08-2005 entered with opposite party borrowing Rs.13,58,000/- agreeing to repay in 46 monthly installments from 07-11-2005 and the forcible seizure of said vehicle by the opposite party in the month of December, 2006 inspite of the payment of installments without fail up to 31-10-2006 and issaul of 12 blank cheques as security for said loan and the opposite party not heeding to the approach of the complainant for its release and finally refusing to release the vehicle even after issual by the complainant a letter on 27-08-2008 as per the dictation of the opposite party and there by the deficiency of service of the opposite party in not releasing the vehicle illegally seizing it in violation of the terms and conditions of loan agreement and their said acts caused considerable hardship on her earnings from the said lorry for her livelihood .
2. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite party has caused its appearance through its counsel and contested the case filing its written version denying its liability to the complainants claim.
3. The written version of the opposite party besides questioning the justness and maintainability of the complainants case denying any seizure of the vehicle and there by any bonafides for the request of the complainant for its repossession from the opposite party allege the irregular payments of the periodical installments by the complainant to it up to 03-11-2006 on reminders dated 03-07-2006 and 02-12-2006 and a total default thereafter inspite of its payability with an Additional Finance Charges ( AFC) @ 36% p.a and also preventing the seizure of the vehicle by threatening and filling this case as a counter blast to the arbitration proceedings taken by the opposite party in AOP No. 73/08 for realization of due amount from the complainant neglecting the payment of due amount for years together after to its last irregular payment of periodical installment . It further alleges that the complainant himself made the said vehicle ceased to exist getting it put to a major accident and disposing its dismantled parts and there after the complainant himself voluntarily approaching the opposite party and executes a letter dated 27-08-2008 as to her liability for the loan avail for said vehicle and so the falsity in complainants greedy claim and there by seeking dismissal of the complainants case with exemplary cost .
4. In substantiation of the contentions while the complainant side has taken reliance on documentary record in Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 and the sworn affidavit of the complainants and its third party – M. Salam Basha and V. Dharmanjaya Reddy , the opposite party side has taken reliance on documentary record in Ex.B1 to B3 and its sworn affidavit.
5. Hence, the point for consideration whether the complainant has made out any deficiency on the part of the opposite party and there by the latter’s liability to the complainants claim.
6. The Ex.A1 is Xerox of the registration certificate of the vehicle
( RC) No. AP 21 X 1862 . It envisages V.Padma Sri ( complainant) as its registered owner . As the opposite party does not deny it and on the other hand admit the fact of the purchase of the said vehicle by the complainant availing loan from it as alleged by the complainant the said fact is held in favor of the complainant . The Ex.A2 is the Xerox of insurance policy covering above said vehicle . As there being any dispute as to the complainants ownership to said vehicle , the Ex.A2 confirmed the said fact requires any further appreciation than what it envisages.
7. The Ex.A3 is receipt bearing No. 45024 dated 31-10-2006 issued by the opposite party in acknowledgement of receipt of a cheque No. 469010 dated 31-10- 2006 of Syndicate Bank for Rs.1,48,000/- towards contract No. ARAA 01844 and 08145 at Rs.74,000/- under each from the Dharmanjaya Reddy and complainant . There being any denial to it from the opposite party and in view of opposite party written version averments as to no further payments from the complainant after to 03-11-2006 and the Ex.B1 letter dated 03-07-2006 of the opposite party addressed to the complainant is referring the contract number to pertaining to Vehicle No.AP 21 X 1862 as ARAA O1845, from the E.xA3 what follows is that an amount of Rs.74,000/- only was paid under the said cheque towards the complainants liability under said contract number pertaining to complainant
8. While the written of the opposite party allege the case of the complainant was filed as counter blast to the arbitration OP.No 73/08 filed against the complainant by the opposite party , the Ex.A4 copy of arbitration award dated 12-03-2008 in AOP .No. 47/07 filed by opposite party against V.Dharmanjaya Reddy and Mr. Ghouse – E- Azam holding the liability to the opposite party as defaulters in payment of the due amount under their loan agreements and hence the Ex. A4 bears any relevancy of its appreciation in this case.
9. The Ex.B1 – reminder letter dated 02-07-2006 addressed by the opposite party to the complainant in respect to the complainants over due under contract No. ARAA 01845 as Rs.1,16,180/- requiring its clearance on or before to 10-07-2006 . As the Ex.A3 dated 31-10-2006 envisages an acknowledgement of Rs.74,000/- under contract No. ARAA 01845 of the complainant , the liability of the complainant for residuary amount payable with any further additional finance charges , bank charges and exchange of incidental charges if any applicable to said due as per the terms and conditions of loan agreement governing the contract pertaining to the complainant and there being any cogent material as to any further payment after to the Ex.A3, there appears every bonafides in the amount of Rs.1,43,715/- demanded under the complainants contract No. ARAA 01845 vide Ex.B2 – final reminder dated 02-12-2006 warranting its payment by 09-12-2006 .
10. The Ex.B3 is the Xerox of the letter dated 27-08-2008 said to have been addressed by complainant in her own handwriting to the opposite party as to her liability under contract No. ARAA 01845 availed for purchase of vehicle No. AP 21 X 1862 . In the said letter besides to a clean and voluntarily admission of her as to her irregularity in payment of the periodical installments and default in payment of periodical installments since November, 2006 and the dishonor of the cheques issued by her , there is a committed under taking from the complainant to pay to the opposite party Rs.1,00,000/- by 31-08-2008 and another Rs. 1,00,000/- by 10-09-2008 and the residuary outstanding balance by 10th October, 2008 and in case of any default there on her liability for the legal proceedings intiatable by the opposite party . From the above Ex.B3 what follows is that the complainant was a chronic defaulter and without being under any force voluntarily given the commitment mentioned in Ex.B3 .
11. As this case was filed on the very next day of Ex.B3 what further appears is that the complainant is not only a chronic defaulter in payment of periodical installments of loan she availed for the purchase of said vehicle under loan agreement vide contract No. ARAA 01845 but also no respect to honor her own voluntary commitment as to the payment of amount under loan liability .
12. Further there appears any bonafides in the complainant’s allegations as to illegal seizure of her above said vehicle by the opposite party in December, 2006 , from the very silent conduct of her till filling this case on 28-08-2008 as if there is any high handed seizure of the vehicle by the opposite party in violation of any terms and conditions of her loan agreement and contract and that too when she was not at default in payment of periodical installments of loan and the said seizure when was seriously depriving the earning of her livelihood , she would not have kept quite from taking any permissible legal action on the earring opposite party lodging any report to the police or lodging any case in Court of Law or at least a legal notice to the opposite party raising her objection and grievance as to the alleged high handed illegal seizure of the vehicle inspite of none of her defaultive conduct towards her liability under said contract and warning legal action if fail to release / repossess the vehicle to her .
13. From all the above circumstances what appears is that the complainant being a chronic defaulter and unmindful of honoring the commitment of her liability under said contract to opposite party and without any cogent proof as to the alleged high handed seizure of the vehicle , approached the forum with any clean hands and without any cogent material constituting any deficiencies of the opposite party towards her with any proper cause of action holding any liability of the opposite party for its claim and there by amounting this litigation to a frivolous and vexatious one on the opposite party entitling the opposite party for exemplary cost at the liability of the complainant .
14. Consequently , there being any consumer dispute and merit and force in the case of the complainant creating any liability on the opposite party for the complainants claim , the case of the complainant is dismissed with cost and ordering the complainant U/S 26 C.P.Act to pay Rs.5,000/- as cost to the opposite party within a month of receipt of this order. In default the complainant shall be liable to pay the supra stated cost to the opposite party with an interest at 12 % from the date of default till realization.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by
us in the open bench on this the 17th day of April,2009.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant :Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1. Xerox copy of registration certificate for vehicle No. AP 21X 1862
Ex.A2. Xerox copy of Insurance Policy No. 2007 – 3099.
Ex.A3. Receipt dated 31-10-2006 for Rs.1,48,000/-.
Ex.A4. Xerox copy of arbitration award dated 12-03-2008.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1. Xerox copy of reminder letter dated 03-07-2006 to the complainant.
Ex.B2. Xerox copy of final reminder letter dated 02-12-2006 to the complainant.
Ex.B3. Xerox copy of letter of complainant dated 27-08-2008 addressed
to OP.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
