DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANANTAPUR. PRESENT: - Sri C.Thyagaraja Naidu, B.Sc., B.L., President Smt.S.Lalitha, M.A., M.L., Lady Member, Sri S.Niranjan Babu, B.A., B.L., Male Member Friday, the 8th day of January, 2010 C.C.NO.91/2008 Between: C.N.A.Chandrasekhar S/o C.N.Aswarthanarayanappa r/o Sira Road, Seetharamaiah House Opp: Sreedevi Nursing Hostel, TUMKUR. … Complainant. Vs The Branch Manager M/s Shrirama Transport Finance Co. Ltd., D.No.1-2-3C, S.V.R. Complex Near R.T.C. Bus Stand, Hindupur. … Opposite party. This case coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri K.Lakshmanachar & Kumari M.Sreelatha, Advocates for the complainant and Sri P.Bhaskar Reddy & Sri K.V.Ramana, Advocates for the opposite party and after perusing the material papers on record and after hearing the arguments of both sides, the Forum delivered the following: O R D E R Sri C.Thyagaraja Naidu, President: - This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party claiming a sum of Rs.4,20,000/- towards loss of income suffered by the complainant, Rs.30,000/- towards mental agony and to direct the opposite party to hand-over the vehicle bearing No.KA-06-B-5349 to the complainant in the condition as it was at the time of seizure and award costs of the complaint. 2. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant took financial assistance from the opposite party to purchase Ashok Leyland Model Goods Carriage Vehicle bearing No.KA-06-B-5349 for Rs.15,30,000/- The complainant hypothecated the vehicle in the name of the opposite party. The said amount was agreed to be paid in 40 monthly installments and the first installment starts by 25-04-2008. The complainant on 25-03-2008 paid Rs.40,000/-, on 24-04-2008 paid Rs.40,000/- and on 15-05-2008 paid Rs.45,000/- in all he paid an extent of Rs.1,35,000/-. He paid a sum of Rs.160/- in excess when the second installment fell due. While it was so, the complainant without any manner of right and without following any procedure seized the vehicle on 06-06-2008. There upon the opposite party got issued legal notice to him on 01-07-2008 stating that he fell due Rs.1,14,877/- as on 25-06-2008 with false claims and allegations. There upon the complainant got issued legal notice on 17-07-2008 to the opposite party stating that he suffered a loss of income of Rs.7,000/- per day as a result of the wrongful seizure of the vehicle and to hand over the vehicle back to him in a condition that as it was at the time of seizure. The opposite party gave reply to his notice on 23-07-2008 wherein he denied the seizure of the vehicle and the complainant in all due a sum of Rs.2,02,100/- towards arrears of installments and Rs.54,944/- towards insurance premium. The opposite party is guilty of unfair trade practice. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards insurance premium on 06-03-2008. The complainant is not due any amount towards premium. The opposite party clearly stated in his notice dt.01-07-2008 that the opposite party seized the vehicle on 09-06-2008, which is long before the monthly installments fell due. The complainant purchased the vehicle with the financial assistance of the opposite party as a source of livelihood for him. As a result of the high handed action of the opposite party, the complainant lost his source of income. The opposite party has no right to seize the vehicle. As a result of the act on the part of the opposite party, the complainant suffered loss of Rs.4,20,000/-. Hence, prayed this Forum to grant relief in his favour and against the opposite party as prayed for in the complaint. 3. The opposite party filed counter and contended that the complainant took loan of Rs.15,30,000/- from this opposite party to purchase Ashok Leyland Model Goods Carriage vehicle bearing No.KA-06-B-5349 and the complainant entered into Loan-cum-Hypothecation Agreement with hits opposite party agreeing to repay the same with interest 6.67% for 42 months. The total value of the agreement is Rs.18,87,179/- to be repayable in 42 installments as shown in the repayment schedule, which is filed by the complainant along with the complaint and it clearly shows that the 1st installment starts from 25-03-2008 but not from 25-04-2008 and he has to pay a sum of Rs.67,420/- on or before 25th. Thus the complainant suppressing all the facts and filed this complaint with all false allegations. The particulars of payment made by the complainant is true, but the allegation that he paid a sum of Rs.160/- is excess when the second installment fell due is false. This opposite party got issued legal notice to the complainant on 01-07-2008 stating that he fell due Rs.1,14,877/- as on 25-06-2008 for which the complainant has given reply notice with false allegations. In the reply notice dt.23-07-2008, it is clearly stated by this opposite party that this opposite party never seized the vehicle. In fact, the complainant himself surrendered the vehicle to the opposite party filed staff and the complainant left the vehicle on the road, having no other option, the field staff brought the vehicle and kept in company yard premises and for three months the complainant has to pay Rs.2,02,260/- and Rs.45,944/- towards insurance premium, which has paid by the opposite party more-over in the reply notice this opposite party has clearly stated that the opposite party is ready to deliver the vehicle to the complainant after paying balance arrears. The complainant paid Rs.20,000/- towards first installment. This opposite party clearly stated in its notice dt.01-07-2008 that they seized the vehicle on 09-06-2008 but not long before the monthly installments fell due. There is no deficiency of service on the part of this opposite party. The complainant himself made default in payment of regular monthly installments and caused inconvenience to this opposite party. This opposite party denied the other averments mentioned in the complaint and contended that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint and therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs. 4. Basing on the complainant’s version and the counter version of the opposite party, the following points that arise for consideration are:- 1. Whether the seizure of vehicle by the opposite party is unfair? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for compensation as claimed in the complaint from the opposite party? 3. To what relief? 5. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant filed his evidence on affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 to A10. In order to prove the case of the opposite party, the opposite party filed his evidence on affidavit and got marked Ex.B1. 6. Heard both sides. Both sides filed their written submissions. 7. POINT NO.1:- The counsel for the complainant contended that the opposite party paid in all Rs.18, 87,179 to the complainant and that amount was agreed to be paid in 40 installments. As per the repayment schedule, the first installment starts by 25-04-2008. The complainant made the payments to the opposite party on 25-03-2008 Rs.40,000/-, on 24-04-2008 Rs.50,000/- and on 15-05-2008 Rs.45,000/-. The complainant paid Rs.20,000/- on 06-03-2008. In all the complainant paid Rs.1,55,000/- The opposite party without any manner of right and without following procedure seized the vehicle on 06-06-2008 though the complainant was not at default. The opposite party got issued notice on 01-07-2008 stating that the complainant fell due an amount of Rs.1,14,877/- as on 25-06-2008 and they seized the vehicle. The complainant gave reply notice on 17-07-2008 denying all the allegations made in the notice issued by the opposite party. The opposite party again sent notice stating that he did not seize the vehicle, but the complainant himself left the vehicle in the road and its staff brought the vehicle for safe custody. Further, it is stated that the opposite party is prepared to release the vehicle if the complainant is willing to pay balance amount and there is no deficiency in service. He contended that the complainant was not a defaulter at the time when then the vehicle seized by the opposite party. Even on the date of seizure, the complainant was due only Rs.47,260/- as per the contention of the opposite party. He further contended that the opposite party can not take law into its hand and repossess the vehicle. The opposite party should have issued notice resorting before seizure of the vehicle. He further contended that the opposite party lost its right to demand the payment of balance amount when it seized the vehicle. As a result of the seizure of the vehicle by the opposite party, the complainant could not pay the installments. He contended that as per the principles laid down in the decision rendered by the National Commission in 2007(3) C.P.R. at page 191 “ possession of the vehicle by virtue of a term in the hire purchase agreement is not fair. “ Further the above ruling approves the directions given by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Dr.Amitabh Verma Vs. Commissioner of Police and others. The above decision is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, it is to be held that seizure of vehicle by the opposite party is unfair and that therefore, the opposite party has to be directed to release the vehicle to the complainant. 8. The counsel for the opposite party contended that the opposite party has given an amount of Rs.15,30,000/- for purchase of the vehicle and the complainant has executed Ex.B1 Agreement of Loan-cum-Hypothecation Agreement on 03-03-2008 for an amount of Rs.18,87,179/- payable in 42 monthly installments. Therefore, the contention of the complainant that he has to pay 40 monthly installments is not correct. He contended that first installment starts from 25-03-2008 and ends on 25-08-2011. He contended that the complainant has admitted that he paid Rs.20,000/- on 06-03-2008 towards insurance premium and receipt for the said amount is marked as Ex.A1. He further paid Rs.40,000/- on 25-03-2008 towards first installment under Ex.A2, Rs.50,000/- on 24-04-2008 towards second installment under Ex.A3 and Rs.45,000/- on 15-05-2008 towards first and second installments due under Ex.A4. Thus, in all the complainant has paid total to a tune of Rs.1,35,000/- towards second installment and Rs.20,000/- towards Insurance premium. He contended that the complainant has paid Rs.40,000/- on 25-03-2008 towards first installment instead of Rs.67,420/- as agreed by him under Ex.B1 and he has postponed the remaining balance amount on one pretext or the other. Further, he paid Rs.50,000/- on 24-04-2008 towards second installment instead of Rs.67,420/-. After the opposite party field staff demanded the complainant to pay the balance amount due for that he paid Rs.45,000/- towards first and second installments due and later he failed and neglected to pay the remaining balance amount even after the opposite party field staff demanded. The complainant had paid Rs.1,35,000/- towards loan installments, whereas he has to pay on 25-07-2008 Rs.3,37,100/- and still due for amount of Rs.2,02,100/-. The complainant has failed and neglected to pay the installments and violated the terms and conditions of the agreement for that the opposite party field staff demanded so many time to pay the installments, but the complainant postponing on one pretext or the other and on 09-06-2009 when the opposite party field staff demanded the complainant to pay the arrears, the complainant had not cared the field staff and kept the vehicle on the road side and went away and having no other option, the field staff took the vehicle into custody and kept in the company yard and still now it is in the yard. As per terms and conditions of Ex.B1 agreement, which was executed by the complainant under article-6 Lenders right and remedies on default by the borrowers clearly shows that the opposite party has right to repossess the vehicle in default of payment by the borrower. Therefore, the seizure of the vehicle by the opposite party under the said circumstances and in the above manner can not be said that seizure of the vehicle by the opposite party is unfair. Therefore the complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs. 9. In the decision cited by the counsel for the complainant reported in 2007(3) C.P.R. at page 191 (National Commission) between Citicorp Maruti Finance Ltd., Vs. S.Vijayalakshmi, wherein it was held that: “From the aforesaid law laid down by the Apex Court as well as the High Court of Delhi, it is clear that even though the hire-purchase agreement may give right to take possession of the vehicle, money lenders/financial institution/banks have no power to take possession by use of force and have to follow the statutory remedy which may be available under the law “(Para 27). “May be that the procedure of law is slow, but that is no excuse for use of force for repossessing the vehicle. If the contention of the petitioner that it can take possession of the vehicle by means of force is accepted the rule of jungle would prevail and might would be right. “(Para 28). Keeping in view of the principles laid down in the above decision, we have to consider whether the opposite party while take repossession of the vehicle has followed the procedure laid down in the above decision. 10. It is not in dispute that the complainant has approached the opposite party Finance Company for loan of Rs.15,30,000/- under Hypothecation Agreement and that the opposite party has lent Rs.15,30,000/- with interest of Rs.3,57,179/- calculated for 42 months and in all Rs.18,87,179/- has to be paid by the complainant in 42 monthly installments and the first installment payment of Rs.67,420/- starts from 25-03-2008 and that installment is advanced installment to be payable by the complainant to the opposite party, as per schedule-I of Ex.B1 Loan-cum-Hypothecation agreement entered into between the opposite party and the complainant. As seen from Ex.B1it is very clear that the complainant has to pay the loan amount in 42 installments and first installment shall be paid on 25-03-2008. It is an admitted by the opposite party that the complainant has paid Rs.20,000/- under Ex.A1 on 06-03-2008, under Ex.A2 Rs.40,000/- on 25-03-2008, under Ex.A3 Rs.50,000/- on 24-04-2008 and under Ex.A4 Rs.45,000/- on 15-05-2008. The complainant has stated that the amount of Rs.20,000/- paid under Ex.A1 on 06-03-2008 in respect of insurance premium payable towards the vehicle but the opposite party under Ex.A5 notice dt.01-07-2008 issued to the complainant has stated that “ as on today you have credited a tune of Rs.1,54,803/- to your account. In spite of repeated demands made by the Company, you have not credited it, having no other option, we seized the vehicle on 09-06-2008 and intimated the same to you”. Thus the opposite party has categorically admitted in his notice under Ex.A5 dt.01-07-2008 that the complainant has paid Rs.1,54,803/- . As per evidence on affidavit of the complainant and Ex.A1 to A4, which are referred above, it clearly goes to prove the fact that by 15-05-2008 the complainant has paid Rs.1,55,000/- to the opposite party. The opposite party has not filed any documentary proof to show that the amount of Rs.20,000/- paid by the complainant on 06-03-2008 has been paid towards insurance premium in respect of the vehicle. Therefore, in the absence of the documentary proof to that effect, the said amount paid by the complainant has to be taken into consideration that the complainant has paid only towards installment of the loan amount. Ex.B1 clearly shows that the complainant has to pay 42 installments of loan amount and the first installment commences from 25-03-2008. Therefore, the contention of the complainant the first installment starts from 25-04-2008 can not be accepted. As per Ex. B1 the complainant has to pay installments @ Rs.67,420/- each per month from 1st installment to 14th installment, from 15th installment to 41 installment @ Rs.33,710/- and 42nd installment @ Rs.33,128/-. Therefore, considering the said facts, by 25-04-2008 the complainant has to pay only two installments of Rs.67,420/-each, which comes to Rs.1,34,840/-. As seen from Ex.A1 to A3, the complainant has paid Rs.11, 00,000/- by 24.04.2008. The complainant by 25.04.2008 has to pay balance amount of Rs.24,860/- only and third installment has to be paid only on 25-05-2008. But in the meanwhile, the complainant under Ex.A4 has paid Rs.45,000/- on 15-05-2008. Admittedly, the opposite party has not issued any notice to the complainant before 15-05-2008 calling upon him to pay the balance amount of the installments, failing which the vehicle will be seized as per the agreement entered under Ex.B1. Without giving notice, the conduct of the opposite party in accepting the amount paid by the complainant less than the installment amount of Rs.67,420/- can be taken into consideration that he has been allowing the complainant to pay the amount as and when the complainant has money. 11. As already stated above, the third installment due is only on 25-05-2008 and by that date the complainant has to pay a sum of Rs.1, 92,260/- towards three installments amount. The complainant by 15-05-20087 has already paid Rs.1, 55,000/- under Ex A! to A4 and the complainant has to pay only a sum of Rs.47,260/- by 25-05-2008. When the complainant has not paid the said amount by 25-05-2008, it is the bounden duty of the opposite party to issue notice to the complainant calling upon him to pay an amount of Rs.47,260/- immediately failing which the vehicle will be repossessed as per terms and conditions mentioned under Ex.B1. But without issuing any notice and without following the procedure as laid down in the above decision, the opposite party resorted to unfair method of seizing the vehicle by sending his field staff. It is an admitted fact by the opposite party that he has seized the vehicle on 09-06-2008. But according to the version of the complainant, the vehicle was seized on 06-06-2008. In the above decision, it is categorically mentioned the procedure to be followed when the vehicle is being repossessed. The opposite party though stated that when the filed staff went to the complainant demanding the payment of arrears of the installments, the complainant surrendered the vehicle to the opposite party field staff and the complainant left the vehicle on the road, having no other option the field staff brought the vehicle and kept in the company yard premises. If really the complainant has surrendered the vehicle, then it is the bounden duty of the persons, who have taken possession of the vehicle from the complainant should have obtain letter from the complainant that he has handed over the vehicle to the field staff. But no such letter has been obtained by the field staff. Further, it is highly improbable that the complainant who has purchased the vehicle with the finance of the opposite party in the month of March, 2008 would have handed over the vehicle to the opposite party field staff without running the vehicle for his livelihood just for non-payment of small amount of Rs.47,260/-, which is to be payable by 25-05-2008. Therefore, considering the said facts and circumstances, the plea of the opposite party and the contention of the counsel for the opposite party that the complainant has surrendered the vehicle can not be accepted. On the other hand, considering the entire facts and circumstances and considering the evidence on affidavit of the complainant and the opposite party, it clearly goes to prove the fact that the opposite party with the support of his field staff by force has taken the possession of the vehicle of the complainant on 06.06.2008 without following the procedure laid down in the above decision. Therefore, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the seizure of the vehicle by the opposite party is unfair. Accordingly this point is answered. 12 POINT NO.2:- . In the decision referred above, in page 52 it was held that “The next question which requires consideration is when the repossession of the vehicle is held to be unfair what relief should be given to the complainant? In such cases, grant of relief would be depend upon the fact whether the vehicle after repossession is sold. (a) If not sold, it is to be returned to the complainant with adequate compensation/damages suffered by the complainant. Or (b) If sold, the damages/compensation is the only relief, which can be granted to the complainant. 13. Counsel for the opposite party while submitting his arguments stated that the vehicle was not sold since the complainant has filed this complaint and the vehicle is with the opposite party. On point No.1 it is held that the seizure of the vehicle by the opposite party is unfair. Therefore, we have directed the opposite party to return the vehicle to the complainant in the same condition on the date of repossession of the vehicle. 14 Since the opposite party has not taken inventory at the time seizure of the vehicle and as there is no material on record to show that what the condition of the vehicle at the time of repossession of the vehicle and considering the fact that the new vehicle was seized within 3 months from the date of purchase by the complainant, it is to be held that the vehicle was in good condition at the time of repossession of the vehicle. Therefore, the opposite party has to return the vehicle in good running condition to the complainant with the Certificate of Motor Vehicles Inspector, Anantapur that the vehicle has been handed over to the complainant in good running condition. 15. Further, while delivering the vehicle to the complainant the opposite party shall not insist for new guarantor since the notice issued by the opposite party under Ex.A5 has stated that “your guarantor also withdrawn his liability of guarantee of this agreement.” In Ex.B1 under Article-8 the details of the liabilities of guarantor are given. It is necessary to extract clause i.e. 8.14, 8.15, 8.16, 8.17 and 8.18 of the said Article-8. 8.14 - This guarantee shall be continuing one and shall remain in full force and effect till such time as the borrower(s) repays in full the loan together with all interest, delayed payment charges, incidental charges, costs, charges and all other monies that may from time to time become due and payable and remain unpaid to the Lender under this Agreement. 8.15 - The guarantor(s) agrees that notwithstanding any defect in or invalidation of this Agreement and/or incomplete documents or writings, this guarantee shall be valid and operative and the Guarantor(s) shall not be discharged from his liability hereunder except by performance of this guarantee. 8.16 - This guarantee shall no be wholly or partially satisfied or exhausted by any payments made to or settled with the Lender by the Borrower(s) and shall be valid and binding on the Guarantor(s) and operative until repayment in full of all monies due to the Lender under this Loan Agreement. 8.17 - This guarantee shall be irrevocable and shall be in full force and effect notwithstanding that the Lender may have obtained any other guarantee, corporate or personal, to secure the Loan till such time as all the dues of the Lender including repayment of the Loan along-with the payment of interest and all other expenses and dues are not paid by the borrower(s) 8.18 - This guarantee shall be binding upon the guarantor(s)’s heirs, executors and administrators. 16. On perusal of the above clauses, it is very clear that the guarantee given by the guarantor shall be continuing one. Therefore, the opposite party can not discharge the guarantor without issuing a notice to the opposite party calling upon him to furnish fresh guarantor in the place of the guarantor, who wants to relinquish his guarantee ship. If the complainant furnishes fresh guarantor, then only the guarantor who has already given guarantee shall be discharged other wise only after payment of the entire loan amount due to the opposite party by the guarantor his guarantorship has to be released. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances, the opposite party shall not insist for fresh guarantor from the complainant while releasing the vehicle. 17. If the opposite party fails to return the vehicle in the same condition as mentioned above, then the opposite party shall be liable to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.2,50,367/-. This is because in schedule-I of Ex.B1 it is mentioned that the price of the vehicle is Rs.17,80,367/- and the opposite party has advanced loan amount of Rs.15,30,000/-. After deducting the said loan amount of Rs.15,30,000/- from the total price of the vehicle of Rs.17,80,367/-, it will come to Rs.2,50,367/- which is the investment of the complainant for purchase of the vehicle and on account of seizure of the vehicle by the opposite party in an unfair manner, the complainant had to suffer loss of the said amount. Therefore, the said amount has to be compensated by the opposite party to the complainant with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of seizure of the vehicle till the date of payment. 18. The complainant claimed Rs.4,20,000/- @ Rs.7,000/- per day for 62 days. The complainant has not filed any documentary proof to show that he was earning Rs.7,000/- per day from the vehicle. Therefore, the contention of the counsel for the complainant that the complainant was earning Rs.7,000/- per day can not be accepted. But considering the fact that the vehicle is lorry, which is being used for transport of goods for hire, it is quite probable to believe that the complainant would be in all probably get Rs.15,000/- per month as income after deducting all expenses and payment of loan amount. Therefore, it is just and reasonable to award Rs.31, 000/- towards compensation for 62 days since the opposite party has seized the vehicle from the complainant in unfair manner and as a result the complainant could not run the vehicle for his business purpose and earn the money for his lively for which he purchased the vehicle by investing his hard earned money and obtaining loan from the opposite party. Therefore, we direct that the opposite party has to pay a sum of Rs. 31,000/- to the complainant towards compensation with interest at 12 % p.a. from the date of seizure till the date of realization. Since the complainant is granted compensation of Rs.31,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of seizure of the vehicle till the date of realization, the question of granting compensation of Rs.30,000/- under the heading mental agony does not arise. 19. If the opposite party returns the vehicle to the complainant, then the complainant shall pay the installments to the opposite party from the date of handing over the vehicle only and the amount already paid shall be given credit to the loan amount. Accordingly, this point is answered. 20. . POINT NO.3:- In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to return the vehicle in good running condition to the complainant within two weeks from the date of this order with the Certificate of Motor Vehicles Inspector, Anantapur that the vehicle has been handed over to the complainant in good running condition. If the opposite party fails to return the vehicle as mentioned above, then the opposite party shall be liable to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.2,50,367/- with interest at 12% p.a. from the date seizure i.e. from 06.06.2008 till the date of payment and the opposite party is not entitled for any claim from the Complainant in respect of the loan amount. If the opposite party returns the vehicle to the complainant, then the complainant shall pay the installments to the opposite party from the date of handing over the vehicle only and the amount already paid shall be given credit to the loan amount. Further we direct that the opposite party has to pay a sum of Rs. 31,000/- to the complainant towards compensation with interest at 12 % p.a. from the date of seizure i.e. from 06.06.2008 till the date of payment. The opposite party shall pay Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the complainant towards cost. . Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum, this the 8th day of January, 2010. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- LADY MEMBER MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT: ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOISITE PARTY -NIL - - NIL EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT Ex.A1 – Receipt No.0933883 dt.06-03-2008 for Rs.20,000/- issued by the opposite party to the complainant. Ex.A2 – Receipt No.6778840 dt.25-03-2008 for Rs.40,000/- issued by the opposite party to the complainant. Ex.A3 – Receipt No.6778854 dt.24-04-2008 for Rs.50,000/- issued by the opposite party to the complainant. Ex.A4 – Receipt No.6778872 dt15-05-2008 for Rs.45,000/- issued by the opposite party to the complainant. Ex.A5 - Legal notice dt.01-07-2008 got issue by the opposite party to the complainant. Ex.A6 - Office copy of legal notice dt.17-07-2008 got issued by the complainant to the oposite party. Ex.A7 - Reply notice dt.23-07-2008 got issued by the opposite party to the Counsel for the complainant. Ex.A8 - Xerox copy of Repayment schedule relating to the complainant. Ex.A9 - Xerox copy of Certificate of Registration in the name of the complainant Issued by Registering Authority, Tumkur. Ex.A10 - Xerox copy of the Certificate issued in the name of the complainant by Registering Authority, Tumkur. EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY Ex.B1 - Xerox copy of Loan-cum-Hypothecation Agreement dt.03-03-2008. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- LADY MEMBER MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR Typed by JPNN
......................Sri. C.Thyagaraja Naidu | |
