O R D E R
SMT. G. VASANTHAKUMARI, PRESIDENT.
Complainant’s case is that the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and the 1st opp.party is a company by name M/s. Shriram Investments Ltd., 2nd opp.party is the Branch Manager, of Kollam Branch of the 1st opp.party, 3rd opp.party is the Kerala State Financial Corporation, a Corporation registered under the State Financial Corporations Act and the 4th opp.party is its Kollam Branch Manager, that the complainant is conducting a Stage carriage service as self employment to make the sole means of livelihood to herself and her family, that as the vehicle that was being operated was an old model one , it had to be replaced by a later model vehicle as per the directions of the RTA., Kollam and so she decided to purchase a new Ashok Leyland
Chassis by 2001 , that the prize of the chassis during November 2000 was less than Rs. 6 lakhs and she had an amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- with her to be utilized for the said purpose , that the complainant was in need of financial facility to the tune of Rs. 5 lakhs and had come to know about the intention of the complainant the 2nd opp.party approached her and offered to provide Rs. 5 lakhs as a loan to her to purchase the new bus chassis , that the 2nd opp.party made the complainant to believe that Rs. 5 lakhs will be provided as loan to her and required her to remit Rs. 1 lakhs towards margin money and accordingly on 30..11. 2000 the complainant paid Rs. 1 lakhs to the 2nd opp.party , that then he demanded to pay
Rs. 10, 750/- towards the insurance premium which she paid on 26.12.2000 and Rs. 6250/- is paid on 13.3.2001 towards the balance insurance premium, Rs. 5,000/- on 13.12.2000 towards the balance margin money and
Rs. 5,392/- on 26.2.2001 towards the balance margin money , and so in total the 2nd opp.party had collected Rs. 1,27,407/- from the complainant and also he had collected 4 blank cheque leaves with her signature alone, a blank Rs.50/- worth stamp paper with her husband’s signature and white paper affixed with revenue stamps and with their signatures as security for the loan , that on 29.12.2000 the complainant is served with a Letter .No.KLM/T/SO/6777/2000 from the 3rd opp.party stating that an amount of Rs. 6,25,000/- is sanctioned as loan to the complainant for the purchase of a new chassis and then the complainant understood that the opp.parties 1 and 2 availed a loan of Rs. 6,25,000/- from the 3rd and 4th opp.party in her name , that immediately complainant and her husband contacted the 2nd opp.party and enquired about it and then they were informed that Rs.1,27407/- will be kept as a security deposit which is returnable with interest at the rate of 15% per annum ie., the same rate of interest of the loan and the last 12 monthly installments will be paid from the said amount , that the first and second opp.parties collected four blank cheques , stamp paper worth Rs.50/- and the white paper with revenue stamps affixed as security for the loan amount, that the unilateral conversion of the collected margin money as security amount is nothing but an unfair trade practice done for the purpose of making wrongful gain to the opp.parties 1 and 2, that the complainant very promptly paid the first 48 monthly installments in time and the opp.parties 1 and 2 are liable and responsible to pay the balance 12 installments by utilizing the amount already collected by them on 30.11.2000 as they have told and made the complainant to believe but when the complainant approached the opp.parties 1 and 2 and demanded to pay the remaining 12 installments they said that the amount collected is a security for the prompt repayment and that will be refunded only on payment of the entire installments and so the complainant caused to issue an advocate notice on 13.1.2005 to the opp.parties 1 and 2 calling upon them to pay the remaining 12 installments by utilizing the amount collected from the complainant on 30.11.2000 and to issue the HP Ter, N.O.C . and to surrender the blank cheques , stamp paper etc. but instead of complying with the legitimate demands of the complainant the opp.parties 1 and 2 replied on 31.1.2005 falsely contending that the amount collected on 30.11.2000 is the security deposit, margin money, service charge and Rs.27,407/- is utilized for the payment of insurance premium and the security deposit of Rs. 55000/- will be refunded without interest on the settlement of the entire installments, that about the surrender of the blank cheques and other documents they contended that the cheques are for the hire amounts and willfully maintained silence regarding the other document but the opp.parties collected Rs.6,25,000/- together with the flat rate interest at the rate of 15% per annum for the entire period , that to avoid an unpleasant situation of taking coercive action on the allegation of default in the payment the complainant remitted the balance 12 installments also in time and the entire liabilities is discharged on 16.3.2000 and when she demanded the refund of Rs.1 lakhs together with interest at the rate of 15% per annum with effect from 1.12.2000 and blank cheques with signature of the complainant , stamp paper of Rs.50/- with signature and white papers affixed with revenue stamps and the signatures of the complainant and her husband which the opp.parties 1 and 2 did not return , that opp.parties 3 and 4 is a public sector undertaking engaged in the business of providing finance for the purchase of vehicle etc. , that they are conducting the business in association with opp.parties 1 and 2 and are promoting the unfair trade practice of opp.parties 1 and 2 and so they are also liable to repay the amount together with compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant , that again the complainant caused to issue another Adv. Notice on 16.5.2006 to all the opp.parties demanding the refund of the amount together with interest and other documents , that the opp.parties neither paid the amount nor replied and hence this complaint praying to direct the opp.parties to refund Rs. 1 lakh together with interest thereon at the rate 15% per annum with effect from 1.12.2000 till the date of payment, to direct the opp.parties 1 and 2 to return the blank signed cheques, 50/- Rs. Stamp papers with the signature of the complainant and her husband, white papers affixed with revenue stamps with their signatures thereon , to direct to pay a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant and to direct the opp.parties to pay the costs of this proceedings
Opp.parties 1 and 2 filed joint version contenting that, the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts, that the complainant is not a consumer as the relationship of the complainant and the Opp.parties are governed by a contract entered into between them on 29.12.2000, that the dispute is with respect to contractual obligations of the parties and so this forum has no jurisdiction to deal with this matter, that the complainant is a signatory to the loan agreement for the purchase of the vehicle and the present complaint is based on the said agreement , that as per the terms of the agreement all disputes are to be settled by arbitration under the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 , that the complaint is ill motivated with intent to delay the repayment of amount legally due to the opp.parties 1 and 2 and to obstruct the legal action to be initiated by the opp.parties against the complainant , that the relationship between the complainant and the opp.parties is a debtor and creditor and so the complainant is not a consumer in the eye of law and so complaint is not maintainable before the forum, that the ops 1 and 2 are a company engaged in a business of hire purchase and leasing , that opp.parties 1 and 2 have tie up agreement with KTDFC, KFC., SBI, Citicorp Finance [India] Ltd., under these schemes S.R.T.O for availing finance to the customers , that the complainant and her husband approached the 2nd OP for availing financial facility for the purchase of a new Ashok Leyland bus , that they submitted a quotation dated 28.11.2000 of TVS showing that the value of an Ashok Leyland Chassis Hino is Rs.6,55,092/- that the 2nd opp.party accepted the quotation and assured that they will arrange the loan from the 4th Opp.party , that the 2nd opp.party collected Rs.1 lakh on 30.11.2000 from the complainant and issued receipt for the same , that the amount collected was debited towards various heads [Security Deposit Rs.55,000/-, Margin money Rs.19,700/-. Documentation Charges Rs.300/-, Service charges Rs.22,000/- and KFC Service charges Rs.3,000/-] , that after that in connection with the financing of new commercial vehicle under SRTO Scheme executed by the 1st and 2nd opp.party with KFC the 2nd opp.party along with quotation NO. 000445 dated 28.112000 requested the KFC to sanction loan to the complainant, that after that based on the proforma invoice dated 28.11.2000 KFC under a hire of credit arrangement with M/s. Shriram Investments had sanctioned Rs.6,25,000/- to the customer L. Vijayamma by Letter No. KLM/ T/150/6748/00dated 23.12.2000 and directed that balance invoice amount of Rs. 30,092/- may be collected from L. Vijayamma, that the opp.party directed the complainant to pay the balance margin money of Rs.10,392/- immediately , that on 30.12.2000 the complainant paid only Rs. 5,000/- and requested the 2nd opp.party to provide the demand draft for the purchase of the vehicle and undertook to pay the balance margin money in one month and on that assurance the 2nd opp.party issued DD to TV Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Ltd. that after receiving the DD the complainant as lessee and her husband as the guarantor executed a lease agreement on 29.12.2000 in favour of the first opp.party , that as per the said agreement the complainant has to pay monthly hire charges in 59 monthly installments commencing from 1.3.2001 and the total amount to be repaid is Rs. 8, 97,729/- , that in addition the complainant had to pay insurance charges and statutory service tax, that the 2nd opp.party had remitted Rs.70,838/- towards insurance charges for various periods , that the complainant has not paid the insurance charges and so she is liable to pay the sum together with interest and moreover some overdue charges is also due from the complainant and more than Rs. 1 lakh in total is due to the 2nd opp.party , that repeated demands did not evoke a good response and the complainant is intentionally evading the payment , that instead of paying the amount she has approached this forum with unclean hands , that as on 30.9.2007 an amount of
Rs. 1,65,037/- is due to the 2nd opp.party from the complainant and the 2nd opp.party denies the receipt of signed blank cheques, signed stamp papers of Rs.50/- and revenue stamps affixed blank papers from the complainant and her husband, that the complainant cannot retract from the agreement that the complaint is filed to evade the payment due from her , that she is estopped from disputing the lease agreement , that the opp.party is ready to pay the security amount of Rs.55,000/- without interest provided the complainant pays Rs.1,65,037/- to the 2nd opp.party , that there is no deficiency in their service and unfair trade practice and the complaint is only to be dismissed with cost and compensation Rs.5,000/-
Opp.parties 3 and 4 filed version contenting that, the complaint is not maintainable against Opp.parties 3 and 4, that the complainant has no cause of action against opp.parties 3 and 4 , that no unfair trade practice had been resorted by opp.parties 3 and 4 and they have no knowledge of any such practice having been resorted to by opp.parties 1 and 2 and have not been accessories to any such practice , that a loan of Rs.6,25,000/- was sanctioned to the complainant for the acquisition of a transport vehicle, that there was an agreement between the KFC and opp.parties 1 and 2 where by the opp.parties 1 and 2 would arrange finance to the customers from the corporation for which they will collect service charge, security deposit etc. , that such application sponsored by them will be submitted to the corporation and the corporation after scrutiny would grant the loan for which opp.parties 1 and 2 will stand as guarantors , that accordingly the complainant’s application was sanctioned and the entire sanctioned amount was disbursed, that as per the loan agreement the complainant had to repay the loan amount in 60 monthly installments with 15% interest , that additional 2% penal interest was leviable on defaulted payments, that the complainant has closed the loan transaction with the corporation, that opp.parties 3 and 4 are not aware of the undertaking alleged in para 5 of the complaint between the complainant and opp.parties 1 and 2 , that these opp.parties have not caused mental agony or pain to the complainant and so they are not liable to compensate the complainant and prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost.
Points that would arise for consideration are:
1. Whether the complainant is maintainable ?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service from the side of the opp.parties?
3. Reliefs and costs?
The evidence in this case consists of the oral testimony of the complainant as PW.1 , DW.1 and Exts. P1 to P9 and D1 to D12.
The Points:
It is the admitted case of the parties that an Ashok Leyland Chassis was purchased by the complainant with the help of finance provided by opp.parties 1 and 2 . According to the complainant the prize of the chassis during November 2000 was less than Rs. 6 lakhs and she had an amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- with her and so she was in need of only Rs. 5 lakhs and the 2nd opp.party having come to know about the intention of the complainant approached her and offered to provide financial facility to the tune of Rs. 5 lakhs as a loan and requested her to remit Rs. 1 lakh towards margin money, Rs. 10,750/- to wards insurance premium, Rs. 6,265/- towards balance insurance premium , Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 5,392/- towards balance margin money and she remitted those amounts vide Exts. P1 to P5 and contrary to what has been made to believe the opp.parties 1 and 2 availed a loan of Rs. 6,25,000/- from opp.parties 3 and 4 and on enquiry opp.parties 1 and 2 informed that the above Rs. 1,27,407 /- collected by them from the complainant will be kept as a security deposit which is returnable with interest at the rate of 15% per annum and the last 12 installments will be paid from the said amount and they also collected four blank cheques , a blank stamp paper worth Rs.50/- and white paper with revenue stamps affixed as security for the loan amount and she remitted 48 installments in time but opp.parties 1 and 2 not remitted balance 12 installments as undertaken and so complainant remitted the entire amount and the entire liability discharged on 16.3.2006 and demanded the refund of Rs.1 lakhs with interest @ 15 % per annum with effect from 1.12.2000 and the blank signed cheques,. Stamp paper , revenue stamp affixed white paper etc. from opp.parties 1 and 2 . But not turned up. But according to opp.parties 1 and 2 the complaint itself is not maintainable before this forum, that the complainant is not a consumer as the relationship of the complainant and the opp.parties are governed by a contract entered into between them on 29.12.2000, that the complainant and her husband approached the 2nd opp.party for availing financial facility for the purchase of a new Ashok Leyland Bus, that they submitted a quotation dated 28..11.2000 of TVS showing the value of an Ashok Leyland Chassis Hino is Rs.6,55,092/- , that the 2nd opp.party accepted the quotation and assured that they will arrange the loan from 4th opp.party, that the 2nd opp.aprty collected Rs.1,lakhs from the complainant and issued receipt for the same and debited towards security deposit Rs.55,000/-, margin money Rs. 19,700/- , documentation charges Rs.300/- service charges Rs. 22,000/- and KFC service charge Rs.3,000/-, that then they availed a loan of Rs. Rs. 6, 25,000/- in the name of the complainant from 4th opp.aprty, that on request complainant remitted the balance margin money of Rs.10,392/- in 2 installments of Rs. 5000/- and 5,392/- respectively on 30.12.2000 and 26.2.2001 and remitted Rs. 10,750/- collected towards insurance premium and 2nd opp.party sent DD for Rs.10,806/- to the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Kodungalloor Branch for cover note of the new vehicle owned by the complainant, that the complainant received the DD for Rs. 6,25,000/- on 29.12.2000 payable to M/s. TVS Ltd. and on receipt of the DD the complainant as lessee and her husband as the guarantor executed a lease agreement on 29.12.2000 in favour of the 1st opp.party, that as per the agreement the complainant has to pay monthly hire charges in 59 monthly installments commencing from 1.3.2001 and the total amount to be repaid is Rs.8,97,729/-, that in addition to that the complainant had to pay insurance charges and statutory service charge, that the 2nd opp.party has remitted Rs.70,838/- towards insurance charges for various periods, that the complainant has not paid the insurance charges and so she is liable to pay the same within interest, that over due charges due is more than Rs.1lakh, that as on 30.9.07 an amount of Rs. 1,65,037/- is due from her that the complainant cannot retract from the agreement, that they are ready to pay the security amount of Rs.55,000/- without interest provided the complainant pays Rs.1,65,037/- to the 2nd opp.party and prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost.
The crucial question to be considered in this case is whether the case is maintainable before this forum. Let us examine with the available evidence as to whether the complainant and opp. parties are governed by a contract allegedly entered into between them on 29.12.2000. It is argued by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant that opp.parties have no such contention and there is no evidence to substantiate the same and the case is maintainable before this forum. Complainant who was examined before this forum as PW.1 would swear before the forum that “29;;12;;2000  opp.parties 1 and 2 ambn execute sNbvX agreement sâ ASn-Øm-\-¯n-emWv Rm³ Cu tIkv AhÀs¡-Xnsc \ÂIn-b-Xp. Fsâ `À¯mhv Pma-y-¡m-c³ Bbn-cp-¶p.; It is true that neither the complainant nor the opp.parties produced the agreement before this forum. But the above admission of the complainant cuts the very root of her case before this forum alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Ext. D2 would show that DD bearing No.948123 dated 29.12.2000 for Rs.6,25,000/- drawn on the South Indian Bank Ltd., favouring M/s. Iyenger and Sons Ltd., Ernakulam, towards payment of 1 unit Ashok Leyland Chassis financed by Kerala Financial Corporation through Shriram Investments Ltd. Kollam to complainant received by her husband. Complainant as PW.1 admitted the same. According to opp.parties 1 and 2 as per the terms of the agreement complainant has to pay monthly hire charges in 59 monthly installments starting from 1.3.2001 totaling Rs.8,97,729/- and also insurance charges and statutory service tax . Ext. D7 to D11 would show that 2nd opp.party paid Rs.70,838/- as insurance premium for the vehicle owned by the complainant. Further the case of opp.parties 1 and 2 is that as on 30.6.2006 as per this statement of accounts maintained by the company an amount of Rs. 1,32,764.31 pais is due to the company and the detailed statement of accounts is sent by registered post to the complainant by their Accounts Manager and the complainant after receiving the same issued Ext. D1 stating that this statement of accounts is wrong. In Ext. D1 it is stated that the H.P. agreement executed by her on 1.12.2000 was terminated on 16.3.2006 by payment of the entire sum as per the repayment schedule issued by the company . Through ext. D1 she requested opp.parties 1 and 2 to issue the statement of accounts truly and correctly. After issuing such a reply and after admitting execution of agreement dated 29.12.2000 to what extent the complainant can deny the alleged agreement and argue that there is deficiency in service.
According to opp.parties 1 and 2 as on 30.9.2007 an amount of Rs, 1,65,037/- is due to the company and they are ready to refund Rs.55,000/- without interest to the complainant if she will clear the entire dues for which she is not amenable . Ext. D1 along with the deposition of PW.1 prima facie shows that there remains some disputes between the parties regarding settlement of accounts after purchase of the chassis using the loan amount provided by opp.parties 1 and 2, then such dispute does not come in the category of “consumer dispute” and the complainant was always free and is also still free to file civil suit or to seek other available remedy before other appropriate forum than this forum.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed as not maintainable. No order as to cost.
Dated this the 27th day of September, 2012.
.
I n d e x
List of witnesses for the complainant
PW.1. - Vijayamma
List of documents for the complainant
P1. – Receipt dt. 30..11.2000
P2. – Receipt for Rs.10,750/- dt.26.12.2000
P3. – Receipt for Rs.6265/- dated 13..3…2001
P4. –Receipt for Rs.5302/- dated26.2.2001
P5. – Receipt for Rs.5000/- dated30..12..2000P6. – Advocate notice
P7. – Reply notice dt.31..1..2005
P8. - Advocate notice dated 16.5.2006
P9. – Repayment schedule
List of witnesses for the opp.parties
DW.1. – Vimalkrishnan
List of documents for the opp.parties
D1. – Letter dated 9..10..2006
D2. – Letter sent by Shriram Investments to the M/s.TVS Iyenkar and Sons Ltd.
D3. – Quotation
D4. – Letter dated 29.12.2000 from KFC
D5. – Receipt dated 3.1.2005
D6. – Receipt dated 7.3.2001
D7. – Policy certificate between 3.1.2001 to 2.1.2002
D8. – Policy from 3.1.2002 to 2.1.2003
D9. – Policy from 5.1.2003 to 4.1.2004
D10. –Policy from 5.1.2004 to 4.1.2005
D11. – Policy from 5.1.2005 to 4.1.2006
D12. – Authorization letter
