BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE.
DATED THIS THE 13th DAY OF DECEMBER 2021
PRESENT
MR. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI : MEMBER
APPEAL NO. 280/2013
1. | The General Manager, Shriram Transport Finance Co., Ltd., 4th Floor, ‘A’ Wing, Agarwal Trade Centre, Sector – 11, CBD Belpur, Navi Mumbai 400 614. | ……Appellant/s |
2. | The Branch Manager, Shriram Transport Finance Co., Ltd., 1st Floor, Gurukrupa Complex, Near NCC Office, Solapur Road, Bijapur 586 103. Appellant Nos. 1 & 2 are Represented by its Manager (Legal), M.R. Madhusudhan, S/o R.K. Manavi, Aged about 50 years. (By Sri M.J. Alva) | |
V/s
Mallikarjun Shanthappa Lingannavar, S/o Shanthappa Lingannavar, Aged about 37 years, Occupation : Business, R/o Sunag, Bilagi Taluk, Bagalkot District 587 101. (By Sri N. Ramakrishna) | …Respondent/s |
ORDER
MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI, MEMBER
1. The appellants/Opposite Parties have preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Order dt.18.12.2012 passed in CC.No.101/2012 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bijapur.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are hereunder;
It is the case of the complainants that the Opposite Parties are the financiers and the complainant is the borrower under the Opposite Party No.2 who had entered into loan-cum- hypothecation agreement on 20.05.2009 for Rs.4,50,000/- in connection with the purchase of commercial vehicle/Tipper Lorry bearing registration No.KA-25-A-9256 agreeing to repay the same in 48 monthly installments at Rs.7,33,500/- and to pay the other charges in accordance with the terms of the contract. The complainant had availed the additional loan of Rs.20,000/- on 24.03.2010 towards the purchase of tyres to the said vehicle. The complainant purchased the said vehicle for his livelihood. The complainant further alleged that during October 2011 the complainant was ready to close the loan account, but, the Opposite Parties were refused the same. On 20.11.2011 the Opposite Parties informed the complainant through telegraphic and seized the vehicle of the complainant. For which the complainant sent a legal notice dt.30.04.2012 to the Opposite Parties to close the loan account and return the vehicle along with costs and compensation. Hence, the complaint.
3. After service of the notice, the Opposite Parties appeared before the District Commission through counsel and filed version and contended that the complainant failed to pay the installments regularly as stipulated in the loan-cum- hypothecation agreement and he had willfully defaulted in payment of the monthly installments in terms of the contract existing between the parties. In view of the non-receipt of the installments and inspite of repeated demands, the Opposite Parties issued a demand notices in writing, but, the complainant failed to pay the due amount or to regularize the installments. Hence, with no other option, the Opposite Parties have taken possession of the vehicle in respect of which the Opposite Parties have got issued notice to the complainant on 14.11.2011 and after due intimation to the complainant, the Opposite Parties had repossessed the vehicle on 19.11.2011. Even after repossession of the vehicle, the complainant failed to pay the due amount, hence, the Opposite Parties issued a demand notice to the complainant on 25.08.2012 demanding to pay the due amount of Rs.6,75,492/- towards one time settlement. Instead of making the payment, the complainant had filed a complaint before the District Commission. Hence, there is no any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. After trial, the District Commission allowed complaint and directed the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.2,42,150/- to the complainant with interest at 12% p.a. from 19.11.2011, till payment along with costs.
5. Aggrieved by the said Order, the appellants/ Opposite Parties are in appeal. Heard the arguments of appellant.
6. Perused the appeal memo, Order passed by the District Commission and materials on record, we noticed that the appellants and respondent had entered into an hypothecation agreement on 20.05.2009 for Rs.4,50,000/- for purchase of commercial vehicle Tipper/Lorry bearing registration No.KA-25-A-9256 and the respondent was agreed to repay the same in 48 monthly installments in total Rs.7,33,500/- and other charges in accordance with the terms and conditions of hypothecation agreement. It is also in dispute that the respondent had availed additional loan of Rs.20,000/- on 24.03.2010 to purchase tyres to the said vehicle. However, the respondent failed to pay the installments regularly. For which the appellants issued several demand notices, but, the respondent failed to pay the due amount and regularize the installments. The respondent was a defaulter so that the appellants got issue a notice to the respondent on 14.11.2011 to take possession of the vehicle and after intimating the respondent on 19.11.2011 repossessed the vehicle. Even after repossession of the vehicle, the respondent failed to pay the due installments. The appellant issued a demand notice on 25.08.2012 demanding the complainant to pay the due amount of Rs.6,75,492/- towards one time settlement and instead of settlement, the respondent filed a complaint before the District Commission.
7. Considering the facts and materials on record, the District Commission came to the conclusion that there is no any documents produced by the appellants that the demand notice issued by them was served on respondent. Hence, directed the appellants to pay Rs.2,42,150/- to the respondent with interest a 12% from 19.11.2011, till payment along with Rs.5,000/- as litigation costs. The reminder notice issued by the appellants on 14.11.2011 and on 19.11.2011 the appellants have repossessed the vehicle. There is 5 days gap. Even we consider that the notice was not served on the respondent, it is the duty of the respondent that after repossession should visit the appellants and pay the due installments, but, the respondent did not do the same which is negligent on the part of the respondent itself. If the respondent entered into a hypothecation agreement, both parties are bound by the terms and conditions. Moreover, as per the hypothecation agreement/ loan agreement, the appellants are the owner of the vehicle till all the installments are completed by the respondent. Hence, the respondent failed to repay the installments means, he is a defaulter and if he is a defaulter, repossession of the vehicle by the appellants would not vitiated for want of notice. The respondent is admittedly a defaulter and he used the vehicle for about two years. In view of the same, we are of the opinion that the Order passed by the District Commission is not justified and the same has to be set aside. Hence, the following;
ORDER
The appeal is allowed. Consequently, the complaint is dismissed.
The amount in deposit shall be refunded to the appellant/s.
Forward free copies of the Order to both parties.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
KCS*
