BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD.
F.A. 685/2008 against C.C. 8/2008, Dist. Forum, Karimnagar.
Between:
The Managing Director
L&T Finance Ltd.
502, 5th Floor, Dega Towers
Somajiguda, Hyderabad-82. *** Appellant/
Opposite Party
And
Aleti Venkat Ram Reddy
S/o. Janardhan Reddy
Age: 40 years, Agriculture
H.No. 1-1, Potharam-S Village
Husnabad (M)
Karimnagar Dist. *** Respondent/
Complainant.
Counsel for the Appellant: M/s. Sujit Sasidharan
Counsel for the Respondent: M/s. M. Ramgopal Reddy.
F.A. 775/2008 against C.C. 8/2008, Dist. Forum, Karimnagar.
Between:
Aleti Venkat Ram Reddy
S/o. Janardhan Reddy
Age: 40 years, Agriculture
H.No. 1-1, Potharam-S Village
Husnabad (M)
Karimnagar Dist. *** Appellant/
Complainant
And
The Managing Director
L&T Finance Ltd.
502, 5th Floor, Dega Towers
Somajiguda, Hyderabad-82. *** Respondent/
Opposite Party.
Counsel for the Appellant: M/s. M. Ramgopal Reddy.
Counsel for the Respondent: M/s. Sujit Sasidharan
CORAM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT.
&
SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER.
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND TEN
ORAL ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D.Appa Rao, President.)
***
1) This is an appeal preferred by the opposite party against the order of the Dist. Forum directing it pay Rs. 10,000/- together with costs of Rs. 1,000/-.
2) The case of the complainant in brief is that he is an agriculturist owns agricultural lands and intended to purchase a tractor from Mahindra showroom in the second week of December, 2006 at Panchasheel Enterprises, Karimnagar. At that time the representative of the opposite party approached him, and informed that loan facility would be provided at 2/3rd cost of the tractor at simple rate of interest @ 10% p.a, at easy instalments. Accordingly he gave consent and signed all the loan documents by fulfilling the formalities. Since the total cost of the tractor was Rs. 4,53,969/- under Kisan Gowrav scheme, 2/3 of it would come to Rs. 3 lakhs. After payment of 1/3rd margin money the appellant has given delivery order to Panchasheel Enterprises to deliver the tractor on 15.12.2006. The first instlament was scheduled on 20.3.2007 at Rs. 32,500/-. As per the delivery order an amount of Rs. 3 lakhs had to released within three days. In terms of said letter the tractor was delivered to him. Subsequently when he went to the showroom, he came to know that R.C. book and other papers pertaining to the vehicle was not received till the end of February, 2007. They have belatedly sent the D.D. for Rs. 2,35,200/- on 1.3.2007 and another D.D. for Rs. 58,800/- on 26.4.2007 in favour of Panchasheel Enterprises. He could not run the vehicle in the absence of R.C. book and other documents. He had suffered mental agony. Therefore due to delay in payment of loan amount Panchasheel Enterprises has been demanding Rs. 27,815.48 towards interest for delayed payment and till payment of said amount they would not deliver the documents. There was deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Therefore he claimed a compensation of Rs. 1 lakh together with interest @ 15% p.a., and costs.
3) The opposite party resisted the case. It alleged that the Dist. Forum at Karimnagr has no jurisdiction on the ground that while entering into the agreement there was a categorical mention that it was subject to jurisdiction of courts at Mumbai, and exclusion of other courts. The issue raised in the complaint does come under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. It denied that its representative had approached the complainant and offered to extend the loan facility. When the complainant was not in a position to purchase the tractor, he himself requested to extend the loan for purchase of a tractor, and made an application accordingly on 2.12.2006 followed by execution of agreement dt. 20.12.2006. The record discloses that the complainant had taken delivery of the tractor on 10.11.2006 and then approached the opposite party through Panchasheel Enterprises for payment of balance amount. On his application an offer letter dt. 14.12.2006 was issued which was acknowledged by the complainant. The delivery order was communicated to the dealer with specific conditions viz.,
Payment of Rs. 2,92,500/- will be released within 3 days on receipt of
1) Loan-cum- hypothecation agreement completed in full with notarization.
2) Original invoice and delivery challan duly signed by the borrower
3) Copy of R.C. with LTD endorsement
4) Copy of comprehensive insurance policy with LTF endorsement
5) Repayment schedule accepted by the borrower
6) Post dated cheques.
7) Duplicate key
8) Request letter from the borrower for disbursement of the amount
9) Form 21 and 22.
10) Margin money receipt undated.
The said order was valid up to 24.12.2006 and any deviation from the above conditions must be in writing. The complainant had paid 1/3 of the margin money on 13.2.2007 towards cost of the tractor and not on 15.12.2006 as claimed by him. M/s. Sri Sai Rama General Engineering Works by its letter dt. 13.2.2007 requested for disbursement of loan amount to Panchasheel Enterprises. The trailer has been purchased from M/s. Sri Sai Rama General Engineering Works. It has disbursed the loan amount of Rs. 2,35,000/- and Rs. 58,000/- to Panchasheel Enterprises in good faith. The tractor was delivered on 10.11.2006 and not in the second week of December,2006. This is evident from temporary R.C. dt. 10.11.2006 valid till 9.12.2006 and the trailer dt. 9.12.2006 valid till 14.3.2007. So also insurance cover note on 10.11.2006. There was no delay on its part. The allegation that they have sent D.Ds. on 26.4.2007 were false. There was no delay on their part and it could have been made by the dealer in issuing R.C. etc. In fact the complainant himself delayed by paying the first instalment of Rs. 32,500/- in May, 2007 which he ought to have paid by 20.3.2007. Till November, 2007 he never raised this contention. For the first time he issued a notice after committing default in payment of instalments. If there was any delay in issuing R.C. book he could have filed the case against Panchasheel Enterprises and not against it. On the information provided by M/s. Sri Sai Ram General Engineering Works by letter dt. 13.2.2007 amounts were disbursed. It was not liable to pay any compensation. Despite their communication to receive R.C. book he did not do so, and therefore the same could not be delivered. There was no deficiency in service on its part and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4) The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A7 marked while the opposite party filed the affidavit evidence of its authorized representative and got Exs. B1 to B9 marked.
5) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that there was deficiency in service on the part of opposite party in not delivering the R.C. book and therefore directed it to pay Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation besides costs of Rs. 1,000/-.
6) Aggrieved by the said decision, the opposite party preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate either facts or law in correct perspective. It did not consider the evidence along with documents filed by it. The R.C. book was with the dealer Panchasheel Enterprises and it was not made as a party. Awarding of Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation was unjust and therefore prayed that the order be set-aside.
7) Equally aggrieved by the said decision, the complainant preferred F.A. 775/2008 alleging that due to non-issuance of R.C. book, insurance policy and other papers he could not run the vehicle and was forced to pay Rs. 32,500/- excess to the dealer besides an amount of Rs. 27,815.48 towards interest for the delayed period, and therefore the Dist. Forum ought to have fixed the compensation at Rs. 1 lakh.
8) The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law?
9) It is an undisputed fact that the complainant had purchased a tractor from Panchasheel enterprises and the trailer from Sri Sai Rama General Engineering Works and he had taken delivery of tractor on 10.11.2006 vide Ex. B5 temporary certificate of registration, and motor vehicle insurance cover note vide Ex. B7 on 10.11.2006 besides trailer on 15.2.2007 vide Ex. B6 temporary certificate of registration. The complainant had paid 1/3rd of margin money amount towards tractor and trailer on 10.11.2006 and therefore it was got registered on 10.11.2006. He had paid balance of 1/3rd margin money on 13.2.2007. Thus the trailer came to be registered on 15.02.2007. As per clause 1.5 of the loan agreement Ex. B2 total 1/3rd margin money came to be paid on 13.2.2007. After confirming the said fact, as per terms and conditions of the loan agreement mentioned above, opposite party had disbursed loan amount of Rs. 3 lakhs to Panchasheel Enterprises on 27.2.2007 as the loan amount was sanctioned towards both tractor and trailer.
10) For the first time the complainant had issued Ex. A4 notice Dt. 27.11.2007 complaining that there was abnormal delay in releasing the loan amount and further management of Panchasheel Enterprises has been demanding additional amount of Rs. 27,815.48 towards belated period, till then R.C. book and other papers could not be given to him. Alleging this amounts to deficiency in service, he filed the complaint. He also sought for release of R.C. book and other papers of the tractor to him from the showroom. It may be stated herein that vendors from whom the tractor and trailer were purchased had issued temporary registration certificates to run the vehicles vide Ex. B5 & B6. Sri Sai Ram Engineering Works from whom the complainant had purchased the trailer had addressed a letter Ex. B9 dt. 13.2.2007 to the opposite party for the first time and requested to release the amount in favour of Panchasheel Enterprises. The complainant did not dispute the said fact in his affidavit evidence. Though the complainant sought return of R.C. book in the notice, he did not seek direction in the complaint having aware that the said relief could not be claimed. Therefore he filed this complaint against the financier in stead of Panchasheel Enterprises and Sri Sai Ram Engineering Works. Had they been impleaded the conduct of the complainant in not paying the balance amount of 1/3rd margin money, and the reason as to why the vendors of the tractor and trailer had delivered belatedly to them could have been known. The complainant did not pay the first instalment of Rs. 32,500/- as agreed upon. He paid the said amount on 29.5.2007 after due date. The record discloses that he made an application on 2.12.2006 and executed loan cum hypothecation agreement dt. 20.12.2006 agreeing to repayment schedule Ex. B3 dt. 14.12.2006 and as per procedure delivery order was communicated to Panchasheel Enterprises with certain conditions, importantly a copy of R.C. with LTD endorsement besides margin money receipt. When Sri Sai Ram Engineering Works requested the opposite party to release the amount to Panchasheel Enterprises on the ground that margin money has been received, accordingly it was disbursed on 27.2.2007 to Panchasheel Enterprises. The tractor was admittedly delivered to him and he never complained that the vendors had kept the R.C. book and other documents.
11) In the very counter the opposite party mentioned “ the opposite party states that on receiving notice on 3.12.2007 the officer of the opposite party Mr. Srinivas Reddy immediately proceeded to the office of M/s. Panchasheel Enterprises and collected the original R.C. book from them. The office of the opposite party later by telephone contacted the complainant, and requested him to collect the R.C. book on which the complainant stated that the would collect it after 3 days, as he was at Hyderabad at that time. The officer of the opposite party on several occasions telephone the complainant to collect but the complainant kept on postponing. Finally the executive of the opposite party Mr. Vijay Kondadi proceed to visit the complainant at his residence on 21.1.2008 but as he was not at home the same could not be delivered. The complainant had received the message that the executive of opposite party had visited his residence thus telephoned Mr. Srinivas Reddy and told him to come the legal way.”
12) The opposite party ought to have sent the R.C. book etc. to the complainant by registered post, when the opposite party itself admits about the receipt of R.C. book from Panchasheel Enterprises. Therefore, we are of the opinion that there was loss sustained by the complainant and the Dist. Forum had directed the opposite party to pay Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation. Since the complainant could not establish that due to delay he could not ply the vehicle, no evidence was placed to substantiate that the loss was to a tune of Rs. 1 lakh, we are unable to grant the amount claimed by him in the appeal F.A. 775/2008. The compensation granted by the Dist. Forum is reasonable and modest. We do not see any mis-appreciation of fact or law by the Dist. Forum in this regard.
13) In the result both appeals are dismissed. However, no costs. Time for compliance four weeks.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
Dt. 24. 11. 2010.
*pnr
“UP LOAD – O.K.”
