FA  793/2007    against CD  281/99  on the file of the

 District Forum,  

Between:

Vaida Age 30 years, 

R/o H.no.6-6-34/8, Near Temple

Karimnagar                                                    .. Appellant/complainant

And

M/s.

2-7-558,

Karimnagar, R/by B.    … Respondent/

Counsel for the Appellant             :       M/s. P. Raja  

Counsel for the   Respondent          :       served

CORAM    :   

                                                                                                                        ..                 

Sri    ……                                

Wednesday, the Twenty Seventh Day of January, Two Thousand Ten

Oral order :   ( as per Sri

                                                                                                                                                            ******

Being not satisfied with the relief granted by the District Forum,   propriety  of it.

The facts of the case disclose that the complainant had borrowed loan from Opposite Party to purchase second hand jeep under self employment scheme on Hire Purchase Agreement. As per the conditions of the  HP agreement the complainant has to repay the loan amount at the rate of Rs.4300/-  per month in installments. The complainant had repaid the loan to a tune of Rs.40,000/- till May,  99 and from thereon due to financial crisis she could not repay the balance. While so, Opposite Party  without giving any notice had taken a way the Jeep from her possession on 07.05.99.  Subsequently,  the Opposite Party  failed to receive the balance of the amount and return the vehicle. The complainant is ready to pay the balance of the amount. The Opposite Party  sent letter dated 20.5.99 to the complainant stating that they authorized their representative to seize the vehicle since there was default in payment of the loan amount. The act or omission on the part of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service.

The Opposite Party  denying the allegations has filed the counter stating that  on 10.8.98, Rs.50,000/- towards  loan was sanctioned and a payment was made through a   The payment commences from 10.9.98 till 10.11.99 . The complainant had paid Rs.17,668/- in four    The monthly installment was Rs.4,417/- but not Rs.4300/- .   The remaining balance   It is false to allege that a total sum of Rs.40,000/- was paid till May, 98.  A balance of Rs.48,587/- was due.  The OP after giving notice had seized the vehicle in May, 99.  After seizure  of the vehicle, they sent  a letter   through Registered post  informing her  to pay the outstanding  amount and take back the vehicle but  the complainant failed to show any interest. So the OP published a notice in   dated 16.7.99  to auction the vehicle.  In spite of it she failed to turn up.  On 19.7.99, the vehicle  was sold for Rs.93,000/-. That on 27.7.99 the complainant approached to offer him to pay the amount by which time the vehicle was sold away.  The vehicle was sold as per law.  The OP is ready to refund to balance of the amount by  adjusting the  amount due from her with interest and expenses thereon.

After considering  the respective documents Ex A1 to A5 and B1 to B5 with respective evidence affidavits, the District Forum gave a finding that the EMI payable per month from 10.1.99  to 10.11.99 is at Rs.4,417 but not Rs.4300/- as alleged.   As per the calculation filed by the OP the loan repayable is Rs.66,250/- with interest thereon.  After adjusting the amounts paid by the complainant a balance amount of Rs.54,145 was due which amount was deducted from the sale proceeds and the remaining balance of Rs.38,855/- has been deposited in the District Forum for payment of the same to her. Thereby the District Forum directed the complainant to receive Rs.38,855/- covered by the pay order dt.19.1.2006. 

Point for consideration whether the impugned order suffers from any factual or legal infirmity

Perused the evidence on record and on reappraisal of it, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant/compliant failed to substantiate the allegations made by her. Though the appellant made a tall claim that she had paid Rs.40,000/-  by the end of May, 99 she had filed only three receipts  i.e. Ex. A1 dated 23.2.99 for Rs.7000/-, Ex A3 receipt dt.22.10.98 for Rs.5000/- and Ex. A4 dated 24.12.98 for Rs.2000/- and except these three receipts no receipts were filed evidencing payment of the amount. Having admitted that the loan was borrowed under HP agreement the appellant cannot question the terms and condition of it in the event of any default in monthly installments. The financier/creditor have every right o seize the vehicle after giving notice which was duly informed.  The appellant has not field any rejoinder to the counter filed by the  respondent about sending of the earlier notice mentioned in the counter. The respondent has filed Ex B2 to B4    filed  by the OP supports the respondents version. Apart from it, the respondent had published a news item in   for purchase of the same as per the rules. The publication of the notice is a notice in   So the appellant ought to have taken steps before sale of the vehicle.  Appellant was not only a defaulter in payment of the amount but also she has not taken timely steps to file the complaint in order to see that the vehicle would not put to sale. Even though the appellant has not produced any evidence to show that she had invested any amount to put the vehicle in roadworthy  condition and that the value of   The respondent/creditor has every right to recover his amounts by proceeding against the security.   The calculation sheet filed by the respondent shows that a sum of Rs.48,581 was due by end of November, 99 for which penal interest and other charges it accrued to Rs.54,145 which amount was adjusted from the sale proceeds of the vehicle of Rs.93.000/-  realized by the sale of the vehicle.  The remaining balance of Rs.38,855/- was promptly offered to be paid to the appellant which she failed to accept it.  It is a settled principles of law that the debtor has to seek the creditor where the  loan was borrowed agreeing to repay the same with interest thereon.  Thus considering the equities involved in  the case,   the District Forum has rightly passed an order directing the appellant to receive the payment of Rs.38,855/- which was deposited by the respondent.  There are no factual  or legal infirmities involved in the impugned order to be interfered with.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order dated 24.02.2006 in CD 281/1999  passed by the Distinct Forum ,                                                                                                                                                   

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    PRESIDENT

MEMBER

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       27.01.2010.