M/S S.V. AUTO FINANCE V/S CH.JAYA PRAKASH - Consumer Court Case

Andhra Pradesh

StateCommission

FA/1542/07

CH.JAYA PRAKASH - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S S.V. AUTO FINANCE - Opp.Party(s)

M/S K.MAHESWARA RAO

29 Oct 2009

ORDER

First Appeal No. FA/1542/07

(Arisen out of Order Dated null in Case No. of District East Godwari-II at Rajahmundry)

1. CH.JAYA PRAKASH

R/O 18-1-90/16 YASODA NAGAR TIRUPATI CHITTOOR

BEFORE:

PRESENT:

ORDER

BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL BENCH OF A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD.

FA.No.1542/2007 AGAINST C.D.No.21/2007 DISTRICT FORUM-II, TIRUPATHI

Between:

Ch.Jaya Prakash, S/o.Munikrishna,

Age 29 years, R/o.18-1-90/16,

Yasoda Nagar, Tirupati,

Chittoor Dist. Appellant/

Complainant

A N D

Authorized person, M/s.S.V.Auto Finance

18-8-41/B, Shop No.6, Boligala Complex

Trumala Bypass Road, Near Municipal Park

Tirupati, Chittoor Dist.,

Respondent/

Opposite party

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr.K.Maheswara Rao

Counsel for the Respondent:-Respondent served.

QUORUM: SMT.M.SHREESHA, MEMBER

SRI K.SATYANAND, MEMBER

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF OCTOBER,

TWO THOUSAND NINE

Oral Order( Per Sri K.Satyanand,Hon’ble Member)
***

This is an appeal filed by the unsuccessful complainant.

The case of the complainant as set out in the amended complaint is briefly as follows

The complainant purchased a two wheeler under hypothecation from the opposite party. The vehicle was registered in his name. The certificate of registration was with the opposite party as per the terms and conditions of the hypothecation and it was marked to be obtained only after clearing the finance. The complainant claimed to have paid the entire finance loan amount due towards the said vehicle and no amount was outstanding due to the opposite party as on 22-7-2006. As such the opposite party was under an obligation to arrange for return of the certificate of registration to the complainant. However, the opposite party with held the said certificate of registration. So he claimed to have got issued a legal notice. The opposite party gave a reply with false and untenable allegations and asserted to the effect that the question of returning the document did not arise. During the pendency of this matter, on 27-3-2007, the opposite party had taken away the vehicle proclaiming that the same can be recovered from the court of law. Hence the complainant filed the amended complaint claiming the return of the original copy of certificate of registration pertaining to the vehicle in question, the return of the vehicle itself and also compensation to a tune of Rs.50,000 besides costs and consequential reliefs.

The claim came to be resisted by the opposite party who filed a version in the shape of affidavit and an additional version after amendment of the complaint, to the following effect:

It is the case of the opposite party that on the same day the complainant obtained the vehicle loan, he borrowed yet another amount of Rs.8,000/- from them executing fresh documents in which it was mentioned that he will receive the certificate of registration only after discharging the said sum of Rs.8,000/- with interest within six months. Without abiding by the said additional agreement, the complainant started litigation on the ground that he discharged the entire loan and filed the present complaint. It is pleaded thus that the complainant suppressed material facts.

In the additional written version, it is further contended that though the court granted the amendment to the effect of directing the opposite party to return the vehicle, the complainant interpolated in the amendment the words in ‘good condition’ and thus thereby guilty of tampering with the court record.

In support of his case, the complainant filed his own affidavit dated 27-12-2006 but filed on 28-12-2006 making it obvious that the said affidavit was filed at the time of institution and not by way of evidence. He relied upon documents marked as Exs.A1 to A3. On the other hand, the opposite party filed affidavit on 4-5-2007 and relied upon documents marked as Exs.B1 to B7. It is obvious that neither of these two parties filed any affidavits after the amendment which was ordered on 25-6-2007. Be that at it may, on a consideration of the evidence adduced on either side, the Forum dismissed the complaint.

Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred the present appeal on the following among other grounds. The District Forum failed to see that the opposite party did not release the original registration certificate though the entire loan under the hypothecation agreement was discharged. It failed to see that even according to the opposite party what all the complainant did was to borrow a personal loan from the opposite party, it has no nexus with the facts of the present case. The District Forum failed to appreciate the evidence.

Both sides filed written arguments. It is very clear from the record including pleadings and written arguments that originally the agreement was for vehicle loan and in that connection; the complainant deposited the certificate of registration with the opposite party as security for the repayment of the loan. As could be seen from Ex.B1, which was stated to be written by complainant but relied upon by the opposite party, the complainant discharged the entire loan taken towards financing the purchase of the vehicle but at the same time Ex.B1contained evidence of a new loan contract which is supposed to be totally decoupled from the original contract. Thus the facts reveal that there are two distinct contracts. No doubt if the events had stopped at the end of the first transaction, surely the opposite party would have been liable to return the documents and also desist from obtaining possession of the vehicle as any conduct to the contrary would establish deficiency of service. But in this case, there is a marked turn in the events as without losing any time after the completion of the first transaction, the parties entered into a new transaction though in that process, the documents evidencing the title to the vehicle in question came to be furnished as security. The nature of the second transaction is totally different in the sense that it answered the description of merely a relationship between a creditor and a debtor as between opposite party and the complainant. Even if we assume that the vehicle came to be impounded by the opposite party, it was only in the context of the creditor’s bid to get the enforcement of the obligations by the debtor. The validity or otherwise of the means resorted to by the opposite party namely, withholding the documents as security for a fresh loan and seizing the vehicle in order to coerce the repayment of the fresh loan transaction in respect of an amount of Rs.8,000/- do not come within the realm of consumer dispute as from the date of the new transaction heralded by Ex.B1, the consumer/service provider relationship ceased to exist between the complainant and the vehicle financier/opposite party and the relationship between them thenceforward viewed against the back drop of a simple money debt no doubt ostensibly supported by the hypothecation of the vehicle title documents, acquired the nature of a civil litigation as distinguished from a consumer dispute. The subsequent development of the seizure of the vehicle is thus directly germane to the second transaction and therefore it too cannot but be consigned to the administration of civil justice. In other words, the grievances tried to be made out by the complainant as stated by the revised prayer no more remained the vestiges of the original consumer dispute which reached a point of termination after the discharge of the vehicle loan and the constructive conversion of the security in the hands of the financier as security for the fresh transaction. The questions that pertain to the subsequent transaction which the complainant deliberately suppressed have to be sorted out only in a civil court as by entering into the second transaction of loan and readily transferring the security of the vehicle title deeds, the complainant transcended the boundaries of the consumer dispute only to enter into a civil litigation. Thus we are firmly of the opinion that the matter as ultimately presented knocks at the very jurisdiction of the consumer Forum and in this view of the matter, the dismissal of the complaint is very much justified on yet another weighty ground, the other grounds being the suppression of the whole truth and the litigious contention as regards the nature of the seizure if at all it was a seizure etc., Thus we do not see any merits in the appeal.