Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/83/2017

Kollamma w/o durgappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Cholamandalam Investement and Finance Co Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.S.O.Ravikumar

22 Dec 2017

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:17.08.2017

DISPOSED      ON:22.12.2017

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

CC.NO: 83/2017

 

DATED:  22^nd DECEMBER 2017

PRESENT: - SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH  : PRESIDENT                                   B.A., LL.B.,

                   SRI.N. THIPPESWAMY        : MEMBER

                                 B.A., LL.B.,   

……COMPLAINANT/S	Smt. Kollamma W/o Durgappa, Age: 60 Years, Agriculturist, R/o Turebailu, Bheemasamudra village, Chitradurga Taluk.     (Rep by Sri. S.O. Ravikumar, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTY	M/s Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd., By its Branch Manager Sri. Girish, DCRM Building, Near Neelakanteshwara Temple, Holalkere Road, Chitradurga.   (Rep by Sri. A. Syed Nazeebulla, Advocate)

ORDER

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH:   PRESIDENT

The above complaint has been filed by the complainant u/Sec.12 of the C.P Act, 1986 for the relief to direct the OP to pay Rs.30,000/- towards damages, mental agony and financial loss  and Rs.20,000/- towards costs and such other reliefs.

2.      The brief facts of the case of the above complainants are that, the son of complainant Mahantesh has borrowed a loan of Rs.2,97,000/- from the OP on 28.06.2012 for the purpose of purchase of vehicle.  The said Mahantesh was the borrower and he created some documents.  The complainant is the co-obligant of the above said loan.  Complainant is an illiterate and she did not know to read and write her name and she is in the habit of put her LTM.  The complainant very recently came to know that the OP has forged her signature to the loan papers on 28.06.2012, complainant came to know about the same when her son after clear of the entire loan obtained from the OP and take back the entire loan papers from the OP.  On the basis of forged signature, the OP has filed a suit against the complainant and obtained a decree and also filed an execution petition before the concerned Court.  After clearance of the loan, the execution petition is closed.  Due to the illegal act of the OP, the complainant has suffered mentally and lost her status in the society.  The cause of action for this complaint arose on 21.06.2017 when the complainant son take back the loan documents from the OP which is within the jurisdiction of this Forum.  Hence, there is a deficiency in service on the part of OP and prayed for allowing the complaint.    

3.      After service of notice, one A. Syed Nazeebulla, Advocate appeared on behalf of OP and filed his version.  According to the OP, the allegations made in para 1 to 6 are denied as false, the complainant has put to strict proof of the same.  It is further submitted that, the complainant and her son have jointly executed the loan papers in favour of the OP and obtained loan for the purpose of purchasing the vehicle.  The OP did not knows that whether the complainant put her signature or LTM.  The complainant has stated in her complaint that, the OP obtained the decree and filed execution petition before the concerned Court are denied as false.  This Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.  The complainant has got every right to file the complaint before the competent Civil Court claiming damages against the OP and further submitted that the complainant is at liberty to approach the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 has per Sec.8 of the Act.  But the complainant has approached this Forum claiming compensation.  This Forum has no jurisdiction to try this complaint.  It is further submitted that, previously the son of complainant by name Mahantesh has filed C.C.No.46/2017 before this Forum, the same was settled between the parties.  It is the instigation from the son of the complainant to file this complaint.  The execution petition filed by the OP has been withdrawn, there is no dispute pending before the competent Court or Civil Court against the complainant.  Only intention of the complainant is to harass the OP.  Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.     

 4.     Complainant No.2 has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.A-1 to A-3 were got marked and closed her side.  OP side never examined any witness and they never filed any documents to prove its case

5.      Arguments heard.

6.      Now the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaints are that;

 

1. Whether the complainant proves that, the OP has committed deficiency of service and entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in the above complaint?

              (2) What order?

          7.      Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

          Point No.1:- Partly in Affirmative.

          Point No.2:- As per final order.

REASONS

8.      It is not in dispute that, the son of the complainant one Mr. Mahantesh has borrowed a loan of Rs.2,97,000/- from the OP on 28.06.2012 for the purpose of purchasing the vehicle.  The complainant is the co-obligant to the loan obtained by her son.  At the time of obtaining the loan, according to the OP, the complainant has put her signature in the loan agreement.  But the complainant has filed this complaint along with vakalath from her Advocate, it clearly shows that, the complainant has put her signature by way of LTM.  As per Ex.A-1 to A-3, it shows that, the OP has forged the signature of complainant.  The OP has written the complainant name in the co-obligant column as Kollamma.  But comparison of the complaint and vakalath filed by the complainant it clearly shows that, the complainant has put the LTM but not the signature.  As per the documents it shows that the OP has forged the signature of the complainant. 

 9.     We have gone through the entire documents i.e., complaint, vakalath, affidavit and written arguments filed by the complainant, it shows that, the complainant has put her signature by way of LTM before the Advocate for filing this complaint.  The complainant son has borrowed a loan from the OP for the purpose of purchasing the vehicle.  By that time, the complainant is the co-obligant to the above said loan, by that time the OP has not obtained signature of the complainant but the same has been created at the time of filing the suit for recovery of money and Execution Petition before the competent Court of Law.  After clearance of the entire loan, the son of the complainant has taken back the documents by that time, he came to know that, the OP has created the signature of his mother and filed the recovery proceedings before the competent Court of Law and obtained the decree, after obtaining the decree, the OP has filed an Execution Petition before the competent Court of Law on the basis of creation of forged signature of the complainant.  After clearance of the loan, the son of the complainant has taken back the entire documents from the OP by that time, he knows that the OP has created the signature of his mother.  It clearly shows that, the OP has created the signature of the complainant and filed the suit for recovery of money on the basis of the decree, the OP has filed an Execution Petition before the competent Court of law.  As per the documents produced by the complainant it clearly shows that the OP has created the forged signature of the complainant.     So, OP has committed deficiency of service.    Accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as partly affirmative to the complainant.          

            10.     Point No.2:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein we pass the following:-

 

ORDER

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of CP Act 1986 is partly allowed.

It is ordered that, the OP is hereby directed pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as a compensation for creation of the forged signature and filed a suit against the complainant for recovery of money.

It is further ordered that the OP is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards costs.

It is further ordered that, the OP is hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of this order.

 (This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 22/12/2017 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)

 

 

                                     

 MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

 

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:  Complainant by way of affidavit evidence.

 

Witnesses examined on behalf of OPs:

-Nil-

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Loan Agreement
02	Ex-A-2:-	Schedule of Agreement
03	Ex-A-3:-	Execution Petition copy

 

Documents marked on behalf of OP:

-Nil-

 

MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT

Rhr**