Andhra Pradesh

Visakhapatnam-II

CC 292/2012

D.V.B. Krishnam Raju - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Dhandapani Finance Limited - Opp.Party(s)

G. Rama Chandra Raju

04 Jul 2015

ORDER

                                              Date of Registration of the Complaint:12-09.2012

                                                                                                Date of Order:04-07-2015

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM-II AT

                             VISAKHAPATNAM

 

P  r  e  s  e  n  t:

1.  Sri H. Ananda Rao, M.A., L.L.B.,

     President           

2. Smt K. Saroja, M.A. B.L.,

     Lady Member 

                                3. Sri C.V. Rao,  M.A., B.L.,

                                     Male Member

 

                                Saturday, the 4^th day of July, 2015.

                                 CONSUMER CASE No.292/2012

Between:-

D.V.B. Krishnam Raju, S/o Satyanarayana Raju,

Hindu, aged 49 years, resident of D. No. 8-1-67,

Peda Waltair, Ground Floor, Visakhapatnam.

….. Complainant

And:-

1.M/s. Dhandapani Finance Ltd., represented by its

   Regional Manager, Office situated at Flat No. 405,

   D. No. 48-18-2/39, Krishna Towers, Srinagar,

   Visakhapatnam-16.

2.M/s. Dhandapani Finance Ltd., represented by its

   Authorised representative, No.14, Ramakrishna Street,

   T. Nagar, Chennai-600 017.

                                                                                        …  Opposite Parties    

                     

          This case coming on 23.06.2015 for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri G. Ramachandra Raju, Advocate for the Complainant and  Sri  P. Siva Sankar, Advocate for the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum made the following:

 

                                                ORDER

          (As per Sri. H. Ananda Rao, Honourable President, on behalf of the Bench)

 

1.       This consumer complaint is filed by the Complainant against the  Opposite Parties directing them to return the original documents viz., 1) Regd. Sale Deed 17.09.1990 covered under doc. No.2080/1990 of S.R.O.,  Bhimavaram; 2) Regd. Sale Deed dated 17.09.1990 covered under doc. No. 2081/1990 of S.R.O., Bhimavaram, 3) Regd. Sale Deed dated 27.01.2003 covered under doc. No. 154/2003 of S.R.O. Bhimavaram, to the Complainant; b) directing to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation with costs.

 2.      The case of the Complainant in brief is that the 2^nd Opposite Party is the Head Office and the 1^st Opposite Party is its regional office and he availed loan facility from them and one Smt. Dandu Venkata Surya Padma Leela has stood as guarantor who deposited her three title deeds before the 1^st Opposite Party and that he discharged the said entire loan and there -after   to approached the 1^st Opposite Party for her title deeds and on that he visited the office but they are postponing to return of the said original documents on one pretext or the other.   Then he submitted a letter to the 1^st Opposite Party on 19.06.2009 informing about the closure of the accounts and requested to return of the documents of the guarantor and after waiting several months the guarantor also sent a registered letter to the Opposite Parties, but failed to return the originals and the acts of the Opposite Parties amounts gross deficiency in service.   Hence, this Complaint.

 

4.       The case of the Opposite Parties denying the material averments of the Complainant is that the Complainant deposited of the title deeds of Smt. Dandu Ramavathi, who stood as a guarantor.    They contended that the Complainant has not come to the Court with clean hands and that he is not a consumer therefore, the Complaint filed by him is not maintainable.   Moreover, the above said loan is for the purpose his business needs, and the Complainant after closing the account deposited documents are extended as a collateral guarantees to the latter obtained loan also for that he gave a letter to the 1^st Opposite Party on 20.06.2008 to continue as collateral security and therefore, there is no cause of action, hence  the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

 

5.       To prove the case on behalf of the Complainant, he filed his evidence affidavit   and got marked as Exs.A1 to A6.   On the other hand, on behalf of the Opposite Parties did not file evidence affidavit and no documents are marked for the Opposite Parties.

 

6.       Ex.A1 is the office copy of letter addressed by the Complainant to the 1^st Opposite Party dated 18.04.2011.   Ex.A2 is the original Postal Acknowledgement from the 1^st Opposite Party dated 23.04.2011.  Ex.A3 is the original Postal Receipt from the 2^nd Opposite Party dated 20.04.2011. Ex.A4 is the Photo copy of Registered Sale Deed covered under document No.2080/1990 of S.R.O. Bhimavaram dated 17.09.1990.   Ex.A5 is the Photo copy of Registered Sale Deed covered under document No.2081/1990 of S.R.O., Bhimavaram dated 17.09.1990.   Ex.A6 is the Office copy of Ledger Account issued by the 1^st Opposite Party dated 01.04.2004 to 31.03.2005.

 

7.       Written arguments filed by the Complainant.

8.       Heard oral arguments from both sides.

9.       Now the point that arises for determination is:-

Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite   Parties and the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs asked for?

 

10.     The first contention of the Opposite Party is that the Complainant is not come under the definition of consumer under Sec.21D of Consumer Protection Act because; the Complainant obtained the loan in question for purchase of commercial vehicle i.e., for the purpose of his business needs.   The next contention of the Complainant is that the Complainant deposited the title deeds for security and after closure of the account he extended collateral guarantee for the latter obtained loan and he gave letter to the 1^st Opposite Party on 20.06.2008 to continue as collateral security to that loan.  

 

11.     Admittedly the Complainant availed loan facility from the Opposite Parties and one Smt. Dandu Venkata Surya Padma Leela has stood as guarantor to him for the loan account No.VIZ 4302 who deposited her three title deeds before the Opposite Parties in respect of her properties, thus it is clear the documents are deposited by the guarantor only but not by the Complainant herein.     However, the present complaint is filed by the Complainant for return of documents deposited by the guarantor to his loan account.   It is not the case of the Complainant on closing his account the guarantor approached for her documents deposited towards his loan account.   Since the documents are deposited by the guarantor, in our view, she is the proper person to sought for the return of documents deposited by her with the Opposite Parties but not the Complainant herein.     Thus, we are of the view, that the complaint filed by the Complainant is not maintainable.

 

12.     On a careful perusal of the record as well as the documents produced by the Opposite Parties, we are of the further view, that the Complaint is not come under the purview of the consumer under Section-21D of the Consumer Protection Act;   since, the Complainant obtained the above said loan for purchaseof commercial vehicles i.e., for the purpose of his business needs.  Further the documents filed by the Opposite Parties clearly and categorically goes to shows the Complainant after closing the account i.e., obtaining loan for crane in which title deeds are deposited by the guarantor extended collateral guaranty to the latter obtained loan for that they gave a letter to the Opposite Party dated 20.06.2008 to continue as collateral security.   It is the case of the Complainant that he did not give any such letter and it is fabricated.   Therefore, burden lies on him to prove but no evidence affidavit of whatsoever, was filed in this regard.   For all these reasons, we are of the considered view that there is no cause of action to file this complaint and also there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties whatsoever; therefore, the Complaint filed by the Complainant deserves to be dismissed.

 

13.     In the result, this Complaint is dismissed.  No costs.

     Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum, this the 4^th day of July, 2015.

 

Sd/-                                      Sd/-                                           Sd/-                                                                                    

Male Member                      Lady Member                            President

 

                                      

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For the Complainant:-

NO.	DATE	DESCRIPTIONOFTHEDOCUMENTS	REMARKS
Ex.A01	18.04.2011	Letter addressed by the Complainant to the 1st OP	Office copy
Ex.A02	23.04.2011	Postal Acknowledgement from the 1st OP	Original
Ex.A03	20.04.2011	Postal Receipt from the 2nd Opposite Party	Original
Ex.A04	17.09.1990	Registered Sale Deed covered under document No.2080/1990 of S.R.O. Bhimavaram	Photo copy
Ex.A05	17.09.1990	Registered Sale Deed covered under document No.2081/1990 of S.R.O. Bhimavaram	Photo copy
Ex.A06	01.04.2004 to 31.03.05	Ledger Account issued by the 1st OP	Office copy

For the Opposite Parties:-                                                                             

                                      -Nil-                                                                                       

Sd/-                                        Sd/-                                                Sd/-

Male Member                       Lady Member                                   President