BEFORE THE A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
AT HYDERABAD.
F.A. 1625/2007 against C.C 36/2007, Dist. Forum, Nalgonda.
Between:
1) Mothilal, S/o. Mangilal
Proprietor
Vijayalaxmi Finance & Investments
Automobile Finance, 6-1-630/10
Khairatabad, Hyderabad.
2) The Branch Manager
Vijayalaxmi Finance & Investments
Automobile Finance
Jagini Arcade, Hyderabad Road
Nalgonda. *** Appellants/
Ops 1 & 2.
And
Dhanavath Balu
S/o. Bheemla
Age: 23 years, Driver
H.No. 19-190, Hanumanpet
Miryalaguda Town & Mandal
Nalgonda Dist. *** Respondent/
Complainant.
Counsel for the Appellants: M/s. V. Gourisankara Rao
Counsel for the Resps: M/s. T. Sarada.
CORAM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
&
SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER
THURSDAY, THIS THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND TEN
Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)
*****
1) This is an appeal preferred by opposite parties 1 & 2 against the order of the Dist. Forum directing them to return all the original documents pertaining to auto and refund Rs. 12,850/- collected towards excess amount with costs of Rs. 1,000/-.
2) The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased an auto for Rs. 80,000/- and took finance from the appellant a finance company wherein he agreed to repay in instalments. On 25.11.2004 though he paid Rs. 32,000/- the receipt was given for Rs. 30,000/-. It also collected Rs. 5,000/- for registration, Rs. 3,000/- for other charges. As against Rs. 82,000/- with interest @ 18% p.a., for 24 months coming to Rs. 1,11,520/-, he in fact paid Rs. 1,55,000/- besides Rs. 5,000/- for registration and Rs. 3,000/- for other expenses in all Rs. 1,63,000/-. They had kept all the original papers including ‘C’ Book, insurance papers etc. When he demanded the papers after discharging the loan, the appellants demanded Rs. 30,000/-. On that he has issued legal notice for which they did not give reply. Therefore, he filed the complaint directing the appellants to return all the original documents besides refund excess amount of Rs. 19,850/- and Rs. 20,000/- towards litigation and other expenses.
3) The appellants did not choose to contest and therefore they were set-exparte.
4) The complainant in proof of his case, filed his affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A7 marked.
5) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the documents filed by the complainant disclose that he was entitled to refund of Rs. 12,850/-. Since the evidence of the complainant was un-controverted, it directed the appellants to return all the original documents relating to auto besides payment of Rs. 12,850/- and costs of Rs. 1,000/-.
6) Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite parties preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate the facts in correct perspective. It ought to have seen that the complainant had paid 15 instalments and Rs. 2,345/- towards payment of 16th instalment. He committed default in payment of Rs. 38,340/- towards arrears and Rs. 27,913.91 towards late payment charges in all Rs. 66,343.91. As against the cost of vehicle at Rs. 1,32,000/- it had sanctioned Rs. 80,000/- wherein the complainant had to pay margin money of Rs. 52,000/-. He paid Rs. 32,000/- only and therefore they had adjusted Rs. 20,000/- by way of hand loan. The receipts themselves show that receipt No. 3461 Dt. 25.11.2004 towards down payment. The receipts dt. 22.2.2006, 27.5.2005, 17.10.2005 and 11.3.2006 for Rs. 8,500/-, Rs. 4,500/-, Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- respectively are towards hand loan. While receipt dt. 12.6.2006 for Rs. 2,000/- is towards interest for delay in payment of margin money. Rs. 54,000/- was ear-marked towards payment of margin money and not towards payment of instalments. He having fell in arrears to a tune of Rs. 66,343.91 was not entitled to original documents or compensation. Opposite Party No. 1 branch at Nalgonda was closed. Due to inadvertence the notice issued by the Dist. Forum was misplaced and therefore it could not appear before the Dist. Forum, and therefore it was set-exparte. Therefore, it prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
7) The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law?
8) It is an admitted fact that appellant is doing auto finance business. The complainant borrowed Rs. 80,000/- for purchase of an auto on 25.11.2004. He alleges that on the same day he paid Rs. 32,000/- towards down payment evidenced under receipt Ex. A2 though Rs. 30,000/- was mentioned vide Ex. A1 receipt, an excess of Rs. 2,000/- was collected as black money. He also alleges that an amount of Rs. 8,000/- was collected in excess towards registration and other charges. However, receipts were not given for the said amounts. Later he paid Rs. 1,54,370/- though the agreed amount would come to Rs. 1,11,520/-.
9) The appellant did not choose to contest before the Dist. Forum. It took a vague plea that it had closed the office at Nalgonda without filing any evidence to that effect. When the appellant had terminated its business and collected the amounts at their office and when it intended to close and shift to some other place it should have informed to its subscribers. It would not only enable the customers to pay any balance instalments if any, but also enable them to contact for closure of their accounts. In the midway, after collecting 16 instalments from the complainant it has suddenly closed its office and shifted to some other place. Admittedly this was not informed to the appellant. Now they cannot turn round and contend that the complainant was at fault. We are not satisfied with the explanation given by the appellants in this regard.
10) The appellants contended that they had paid Rs. 8,500/-, Rs. 4,500/-, Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant on 22.2.2006, 27.5.2005, 17.10.2005 and 11.3.2006 respectively, towards hand loan. However a perusal of bunch of receipts Ex. A3 filed by the complainant issued by the very appellants show they were issued towards balance. Only in one receipt bearing No. 1274 Dt. 27.4.2005 there was a specific mention that it
was towards hand loan. From this it can be inferred that the appellant intended not only to mis-guide but also lay false claim. Evidently it intends to appropriate the amount paid by the complainant without giving deduction towards loan account as hand loan. This is unjust. Evidently the amount covered under the receipts come to Rs. 1,49,870/-. Since an amount of Rs. 4,500/- represents hand loan, we do not intend this amount to be included. The appellant could not show as to the amount that the complainant had to pay for all the instalments. The fact remains that as against Rs. 1,11,520/- he had paid Rs. 1,49,870/- covered by the receipts. The averment that he had paid Rs. 1,49,870/- was not rebutted. The Dist. Forum after calculating the amount directed the appellant to pay Rs. 12,550/- with which we agree.
11) The appellant contended that it did not keep the R.C. book and insurance papers etc., and that he could not have run the vehicle without these documents, forgetting the fact in the grounds of appeal in para ‘q’ it alleged that “the Dist. Forum failed to see that the complainant who is a defaulter and who fell arrears to a tune of Rs. 66,343.91 is not entitled for the return of original papers and any compensation and costs.”
12) It did not allege that the original papers were not kept with it. Curiously at the time of hearing of the appeal it has enclosed xerox copy of Registration Certificate. In the light of contrary pleas raised from one stage to the other, we are of the opinion that the appellant must have taken xerox copy from the original and filed the same before this Commission in order to get over the return of the original documents ordered by the Dist. Forum. We are not satisfied with this explanation. No doubt, it must have kept the documents while releasing the loan. We do not see any mis-appreciation of fact or law by the Dist. Forum in this regard. There are no merits in the appeal.
13) In the result the appeal is dismissed with costs computed at Rs. 5,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
Dt. 15. 04. 2010.
*pnr
“UP LOAD – O.K.”
