BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : WARANGAL
Present: Sri D.Chiranjeevi Babu
President.
Sri N.J.Mohan Rao,
Member.
AND
Smt. V.J. Praveena,
Member.
Friday the 30th May, 2008.
CONSUMER DISPUTE NO. 32/2006
Between:
K.Seetharamacharyulu,
S/o.Narsimhacharyulu,
Age 41 years,
Occu.: Business,
R/o.H.No.24-7-224/1,
Subedari, Hanamkonda,
Warangal District.
… Complainant
AND
1. M/s.Shrachi Securities ltd.,
Customer Service Centre,
H.No.15-1-338, II Floor,
Industrial Estate, Mulug Road,
Warangal – 506 007.
2. Shrachi Securities Limited,
6-3-655/6/B, I Floor,
Civil Supplies Bhavan Lane,
Somajiguda,
Hyderabad – 82.
3. Citicorp Finance (India) Limited,
Ashoka Janardhan Chambers,
4th 4011-10-72,
Adarsh Nagar, S.P.Road,
Begumpet,
Hyderabad – 500 06..
… Opposite Parties
Counsel for the Complainant : Sri. M.Sadasivudu, Advocate
Counsel for the Opposite Parties : Sri. Prabhakar Sripada, Advocate
This complaint coming for final hearing before this Forum, the Forum pronounced the following Order.
:: ORDER ::
Sri D.Chiranjeevi Babu President
The brief averments contained in the complaint filed by the complainant are as follows:
01. The complainant obtained a loan from opposite parties, which was processed by opposite party No.1 the loan amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and purchased a Maxi Cab LMV AP36V 8552 which is repayable in 45 months, the opposite party No.1 collected an amount for 17 installments, for which the opposite parties were not given any receipt, for the opposite party No.1 believe to the complainant house and taken the vehicle and handed over the opposite parties, then the complainant issued a legal notice and the opposite parties also issued reply to the complainant. Thereafter the complainant filed this case against the opposite parties.
Opposite Parties filed the Written Versions contending in brief as follows:
02. As per the Written Versions of the Opposite parties the complainant has paid only Rs.2,28,007/- by 29-11-2005 as against the amount of Rs.3,27,359/- due as on 01-12-2005 i.e. 22 installments by keeping a deficit balance amount to the tune of Rs.99,352/-, so as on 01-08-2005 the due amount for installments is Rs.42,420/- (i.e. 19 installments @ Rs.14,233/- = Rs.2,70,427/- and less amount paid Rs.2,28,007/-) apart from the delayed penal charges of which, the complainant deliberately failed to remit. So this amounts to show that the complainant is a defaulter and deliberately failed the due amount. As per the Written Version the complainant has to pay Rs.4,97,965/- to the opposite party No.3 by 18-06-2006, so he has not paid the due amount, the complainant has not paid the due amount but he filed this complaint before this Forum.
03. The complainant in support of his claim filed his Affidavit in the form of chief examination and marked Exs.A-01 to A-08. On behalf of opposite parties Sri Prabhakar Sripada filed his Affidavit in the form of chief examination and marked Ex.B-1 & B-2.
04. Now the point for consideration whether the complainant is entitled to get an amount of Rs.1,36,000/- which is paid as a margin money to the dealer, Rs.2,41,961/- paid towards E.M.Is for 17 installments i.e 17x14,233/- and Rs.11,621/- paid towards insurance up to 31-01-2005 i.e. totaling Rs.3,89,582/- along with 12% per annum and also an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages, compensation and mental agony an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards costs.
05. In this case arguments heard from complainant side, but no arguments from opposite parties side. As per the arguments of the complainant that, the complainant obtained a loan from opposite parties, which was processed by opposite party No.1 the loan amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and purchased a Maxi Cab LMV AP36V 8552 which is repayable in 45 months, the opposite party No.1 collected an amount for 17 installments, for which the opposite parties were not given any receipt, for the opposite party No.1 believe to the complainant house and taken the vehicle and handed over the opposite parties, then the complainant issued a legal notice, than the opposite parties also issued reply to the complainant. Thereafter the complainant filed this case against the opposite parties, in this case really the complainant is entitled the relief as prayed or not, for this our answer is that, he is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for because it is true that, the complainant availed financial facility from opposite party No.1 company through opposite party No.3 for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- for purchase of Maxi Cab LMV Vide Registration No.AP36-V 8552 and the complainant agreed to repay the said amount of Rs.5,00,000/- along with hire charges and insurance amount of Rs.1,40,485/- which comes to Rs.6,40,485/- in 45 equal monthly installments of Rs.14,233/- starting from the month on 01-02-2004 and ending by 01-01-2007 when already the complainant entered into an Loan-Cum-Hypothecation Agreement vide No.LX1-082-4533830, dated 01-01-04. It is clear cut that the complainant was no voice except pay the installments amount if he will be defaulter, certainly the opposite parties has action against him i.e. by way of taking his vehicle from his custody. It is clearly mentioned in Ex.B-2 it is a Loan-Cum-Hypothecation Agreement. As per the terms and conditions of the Ex.B-2, there is an Arbitration Clause to refer any disputes under the said agreement before an Arbitration nominated by this opposite party No.3 and the opposite party No.3 is taking all appropriate steps to refer the said dispute the Sole Arbitration as mentioned over the above Agreement No.LXI-082-4533830, dt.:01-01-2004. i.e. Ex.B-2 as per the return allocation of opposite parties that, the complainant has not paid the monthly installments regularly and he has already raised with delay and that the field staff of opposite party No.1 has been requesting complainant to remit the monthly installments regularly on the due dates stipulated as per the repayment schedule otherwise the penal interest will be charged for the delayed period and in spite of several requests made by the opposite parties 1 & 2. The complainant has not taken any steps to remit monthly installments promptly on the due dates. As per Ex.B-2 if the monthly installments are not remitted by the Hirer i.e. the complainant promptly on the due dates stipulated in the repayment schedule, the financier is entitled to repossess the vehicle through opposite parties 1 & 2 being the business channel Partner, so as per the terms of the Ex.B-2 only i.e. Agreement it has repossessed the vehicle being AP36-V 8562, after repossession of the said vehicle it has sent its field staff to the complainant to pay the balance amount by availing the Pre-Close rebate as the said contract is determined an account of default by the complainant, but the complainant has not paid the same.
As per the Written Versions of the Opposite parties the complainant has paid only Rs.2,28,007/- by 29-11-2005 as against the amount of Rs.3,27,359/- due as on 01-12-2005 i.e. 22 installments by keeping a deficit balance amount to the tune of Rs.99,352/-, so as on 01-08-2005 the due amount for installments is Rs.42,420/- (i.e. 19 installments @ Rs.14,233/- = Rs.2,70,427/- and less amount paid Rs.2,28,007/-) apart from the delayed penal charges of which the complainant deliberately failed to remit. So this amounts to show that the complainant is a defaulter and deliberately failed the due amount. As per the Written Version the complainant has to pay Rs.4,97,965/- to the opposite party No.3 by 18-06-2006, so he has not paid the due amount, but the complainant has not paid the due amount but he filed this complaint before this Forum. We come to the conclusion that the complainant is a defaulter as per Ex.B-2 they are having full rights to take action against the complainant and further the complainant has to pay an amount of Rs.4,97,965/- to the opposite parties, so the opposite parties correctly followed the procedure, because the complainant is a defaulter i.e. the reason to opposite parties have taken away the vehicle. It is the duty of the complainant to pay the due amount of Rs.4,97,965/- to the opposite parties then he has to recover of his vehicle.
For the foregoing reasons given by us, we see no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and accordingly this point is decided in favour of the opposite parties against the complainant.
POINT No.2 WHAT REIEF:-
The first point is decided in favour of the opposite parties against the complainant. This point is also decided in favour of the opposite parties against the complainant.
In the result this complaint is dismissed but without costs.
(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed by him corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum today i.e. 30th May, 2008).
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
Member Member President,
District Consumer Forum, Warangal.
APPENDIX OF EVIDNECE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT ON BEHALF OF O.Ps.
Affidavit of Complainant Affidavit of Opposite Parties
EXHIBITS MARKED
ON BEHALFOF COMPLAINANT
1. Ex.A-1 is the Citicorp Loan Statement.
2. Ex.A-2 is the Legal Notice, dated 24-11-2005.
3. Ex.A-3 is the Reply Notice, dated 30-11-2005.
4. Ex.A-4 is the Reply Notice, dated 08-12-2005.
5. Ex.A-5 is the Acknowledgement card acknowledged by counsel for opposite parties, dated 10-12-2005.
6. Ex.A-6 is the Legal Notice Registered Post with acknowledgement due sealed cover, which is returned to its addressee, dated 26-11-2005.
7. Ex.A-7 is the Registered Post with acknowledgment due, acknowledged by opposite party No.2 & 3.
8. Ex.A-8 is the Registered Post with acknowledgement due, acknowledged by R.T.A., Warangal, dated 29-11-2005.
ON BEHALF OF Opposite partIES
- Ex.B-1 is the CFIL-Statement of Account of K.Seetha Ramacharyulu,
Cont.No.LX1-082-4533830, Contd.Date 01-01-2004, Make: Tempo
Traveller, Regd.No.AP 36V 8552.
- Ex.B-2 is the Xerox copy of Loan-Cum-Hypothecation Agreement and Demand Promissory Note.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT.
