Telangana

Khammam

CC/10/89

1. Kandula Madhavi Latha, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Magma Sharchi Finance Ltd., H.No.06-153/A, Behind Srinivasa Filling Station, Khanapuram Haveli Grama - Opp.Party(s)

Kalvala Suguna Prasad, advocate for complainant

18 Mar 2011

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
OPPOSITE CSI CHURCH
VARADAIAH NAGAR
KHAMMAM 507 002
TELANGANA STATE
 
Complaint Case No. CC/10/89
 
1. 1. Kandula Madhavi Latha,
W/o. Kandula Laxmi Narasimha Rao, Age: 38 years, Occu: Household, R/o.Khammam.
Khammam District
Andhra Pradesh
2. Kandula Laxmi Narasimha Rao
Age:45 years, Occu: Employee, R/o. Khammam.
Khammam
Andhra Pradesh
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Magma Sharchi Finance Ltd., H.No.06-153/A, Behind Srinivasa Filling Station, Khanapuram Haveli Grama Panchayati Office Road, & 2. Magma Sharchi Finance Ltd., D.No.59/A,
Behind Srinivasa Filling Station, Khanapuram Haveli Grama Panchayati Office Road, VDO’s Colony,
Khammam
Andhra Pradesh
2. 2. Magma Sharchi Finance Ltd.,
D.No.59/A, First Floor, above Federal Bank, Near NTR Statue, Patamata,
Vijayawada. Krishna District.
Andhra Pradesh
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
ORDER

This C.C. is coming on before us for final hearing, in the presence of Sri Kalvala Suguna Prasad, Advocate for complainants and in the presence of Sri G. Harender Reddy, Advocate for opposite parties; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration, this forum passed the following:

 

ORDER

(Per Sri R. Kiran Kumar, Member)

 

        This complaint is filed u/s.12-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The averments made in the complaint are that the complainants are wife and husband.  The Complainant No.1 with the security of the Complainant No.2 purchased a Car with the No.AP20 3330 under the hire purchase from opposite parties with the down payment of Rs.56,350-00 and total value of the car is Rs.3,64,358/-.  As per the agreement, the complainants paid 20 installments without any default up to January 2010 and due to heavy and unexpected financial problems, they became default for the month of February and March 2010.  On 10-03-2010, the opposite party No.2 reminded through their letter by saying that non-payment of single installment amounts to the breach of agreement and on such default they have the right to take possession.  Basing on the condition, without any due process the opposite parties seized the car by simply making out the old aged persons and ladies from the car on national high way, when they were traveling from Khammam to Vijayawada without hearing anybody.  The complainants further submitted that after taking over the car by opposite parties without due process of information and even after making the above said down payment, the opposite parties with their high handed authority want to gain huge amounts as if the Hire Purchase agreement is existed.  Due to the deficiency of service committed by opposite parties, the complainants were put to mental tension and agony not only by them and also all the family members, for which the complainant approached the Forum for redressal.

 

2.     On behalf of the complainants, the following documents were filed and marked as Exhibits A1 to A6.

Ex.A1:-   Photo copy of letter issued by opposite parties to the

               complainant No.1, dated 16-06-2008.

Ex.A2:-   Photo copy of Transaction details.

Ex.A3:-  Photo copy of letter issued by the opposite parties to the

              complainant No.1 demanding for payment of dues,

              dated 10-03-2010.

Ex.A4:-  Photo copy Pre Sale Notice, issued by opposite parties to

              the Complainant No.1, dated 30-03-2010.

Ex.A5:-  Office copy of legal notice, dated 06-04-2010 issued by

              counsel for complainants.

Ex.A6:-  Photo copy of reply given by opposite parties to the

              counsel for the complainants.

 

3.     On receipt of the notice, opposite parties appeared through their counsel.  On 27-12-2010, counsel for opposite parties filed a memo along with photo copy of letter submitted by the complainants request for settlement of loan proposal dated 25-10-2010, which is marked as Ex.B1 and also filed photo copy of Cash Receipt, dated 29-10-2010 which is marked as Ex.B2.  Basing on the memo the matter was posted for hearing of the complainants. As there was no representation from the complainants hence treated the matter as heard from complainants’ side.

 

4.     Upon perusing the material papers on record, now the point that arose for consideration is,

Whether the complainants are entitled for the claim?

 

Point:-

The case of the complainants are that complainant No.1 with the security of Complainant No.2 purchased a car under Hire Purchase agreement from opposite parties.  As per the agreement, the complainants have to pay 60 monthly installments out of which they paid 20 installments regularly and due to unexpected financial problems, they become default for the months of February and March 2010.  On that the opposite parties reminded in their letter dated 10-03-2010 by saying non-payment of single installment amounts to breach of agreement and on such default, they have the right to take possession of the vehicle.  Basing on that condition, the opposite parties taken over the car, for that the complainants approached the Forum for deficiency of service.  While the matter was posted for counter of opposite parties on 27-12-2010, counsel for opposite parties filed a memo along with photo copy of letter said to have been executed by complainants “Request for settlement of loan proposal No.PG/0159/C/07/000010-Reg” , wherein on the request of complainants, the opposite parties have agreed to close the loan amount on payment of Rs.19,000/- on or before 31-10-2010 and subject to withdrawal of this case before this forum, on that the complainants agreed to pay the amount and withdraw the case.  Along with memo the opposite parties filed a photo copy of receipt dated 29-10-2010 for the payment of settlement amount of Rs.19,000/-, vide receipt No.C156257 (Ex.B2).  After receiving the memo, the matter was posted for hearing of the complainants.  As there was no representation from the complainants’ side, for the above circumstances, basing on the memo along with the receipt dated 29-10-2010 filed by the opposite parties, the matter is is liable to be dismissed. 

        In the result, the complaint is dismissed.

        Dictated to steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, on this 18th day of March, 2011.

 

 

PRESIDENT           MEMBER

DISTRICT CONSUEMRS FORUM,

KHAMMAM

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses examined for complainant:- None

 

Witnesses examined for opposite parties:- None

 

 

 

Exhibits marked for Complainant:

 

Ex.A1:-   Photo copy of letter issued by opposite parties to the complainant No.1, dated 16-06-2008.

Ex.A2:-   Photo copy of Transaction details.

Ex.A3:-  Photo copy of letter issued by the opposite parties to the

             complainant No.1 demanding for payment of dues,

             dated 10-03-2010.

Ex.A4:-  Photo copy Pre Sale Notice, issued by opposite parties to the Complainant No.1, dated 30-03-2010.

Ex.A5:-  Office copy of legal notice, dated 06-04-2010 issued by counsel for complainants.

Ex.A6:-  Photo copy of reply given by opposite party to the counsel for the complainants

Exhibits marked for opposite parties:-

Ex.B1:- Photo copy of letter submitted by the complainants request for settlement of loan proposal, dated 25-10-2010.

Ex.B2:- Photo copy of Cash Receipt, dated 29-10-2010

 

 

 

PRESIDENT   MEMBER

DISTRICT CONSUEMRS FORUM,

KHAMMAM

 

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.