Date of Filling : 11.08.2014
Date of Disposal : 22.12.2015
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, THIRUVALLUR
PRESENT: THIRU. S.PANDIAN, B.Sc., L.L.M., … PRESIDENT
TMT. S.SUJATHA,B.Sc., … MEMBER-I
CC.54/2014
Tuesday, the 22nd day of December 2015
B.Govardhanam
S/o Subramani
Sri Ramakuppam Village,
Hamlet of Katchur Village,
Uthukottai Taluk, Tiruvallur District. …Complainant
/Vs/
The Branch Manager,
Shiram Transport Finance Company Ltd.,
J.N.Road, Tiruvallur- 602 001. …Opposite Party
….
This Complaint is coming upon before us finally on 08.12.2015 in the Presence of Thiru.Poovannan Advocate on the side of the complainant and Thiru.Prakalatha Kannan, Advocate for the opposite party and upon hearing arguments on the side of the complainant and perused the documents and evidence, this Forum delivered the following,
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY THIRU. S. PANDIAN, PRESIDENT
This Complaint is filed by the complainant U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party seeking direction that the opposite party has to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-for damage and loss caused by the opposite party and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony, hardship and strain caused the complainant and to submit the proper statement of account with cost.
The Brief averments of the complaint as follows:
1. The complainant is an agriculturalist and doing the agricultural activities throughout the state and neighboring states and he approached the opposite party for financial assistance for purchasing Crop Harvesting machine and the same was sanctioned loan Account TRULR0209210008. The total loan amount was Rs.5,70,000/-, (Rupees five lakhs and seventy thousand only) it was agreed to be repaid in 30 equated monthly instalments of Rs.27,122/- per month and so far the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.5,25,000/- (Rupees five lakhs and twenty five thousand only)
2. When the loan account is to be closed by July 2014, the complainant contracted the officials of the opposite party for the balance payment to settle the entire dues and to his shock and surprise he was informed that he is now in due of Rs.6,00,000/-( Rupees six lakhs only). That after making most of the loan amount the opposite party informed that the complainant is in due of more than the loan amount and thereby he is actually astonished and under strong confusion that how the opposite party could arrive such a huge sum. The complainant further submits that the opposite party also furnished a new repayment schedule as thought the loan schedule starts from 05.11.2012, even though the complainant started making payment as per the loan agreement dated 20.02.2012 and was shocked to see the repayment schedule starts from 05.11.2012. The opposite party high handedly manipulated the records and rescheduled the payments without the knowledge and consent of the complainant and he was put to great mental agony and shock and it amounts to gross deficiency in the service.
3. The claim by the opposite party by a Rs.6,00,000/-for a loan of Rs.70,000/- after receiving Rs.5,25,000/- is unlawful and arbitrary. The complainant now reliably learnt that the opposite party may misuse the documents viz., Original sale deed dated 27.08.2013 in the name of his father Mr.Subramanian and the cheque leaves.
4.Further the opposite party has not handed over the original registration certificate of the vehicle bearing registration number TN21P9245 and without the said certificate the complainant could not rent out the vehicle outside the state and thus even though there was much demand on Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka. The complainant was not in a position to rent out the vehicle without the registration certificate and incurred heavy loss. The complainant therefore on 04.06.2014 issued a legal notice to the opposite party calling for proper statement of account enabling the complainant to settle the amount and return back the original sale deed and the cheques aforesaid furnished as security, the opposite party though had received the notice has not chosen to reply or comply with the notice demand and thereby caused mental agony and hardship due to the deficiency in service. Hence this complaint.
The contention of the written version of the opposite party as brief as follows:
5. This complaint is not maintainable and sustainable. The agreement is in respect of a vehicle acquired by the complaint for commercial purpose, the complainant is not a consumer. The opposite party denies all the allegations with regard to the facts in respect of the Loan-Cum Hypothecation agreement except those that are specifically admitted herein. The complainant approached them with a request to extent to him financial facilities to required a “ Crop Harvester Vehicle” and the opposite party extended financial facilities to him in pursuance of the Loan-Cum Hypothecation agreement entered into by him on 21.09.2012, the total agreement value of Rs.9,50,052/- (Nine lakhs fifty thousand and fifty two only) being payable in thirty six monthly installments, the first installment being at Rs.33,235/- the next thirty four monthly installments at Rs.26,195/- each and the last and thirty sixth monthly installment at Rs.26,187/-
6. The complainant was very irregular in payment of the monthly installment, but, however he paid only a total sum of Rs.4,04,500/- (being the first installment Rs.33,235/- and the subsequent fourteen installments are Rs.26,195/- and a sum of Rs.4,535/- being the part payment of in respect of the sixteenth installments) and failed and neglected to pay the subsequent installments in which complainant is liable to pay along with the overdue charges in respect of the belated and defaulted installments, it is submitted that as on 08.01.2015 the total sum of Rs.6,54,004/- (sis lakhs fifty four thousand and four) is due which the complainant is liable to pay.
7. The present complaint is filed by the complainant only with a view to evade the legal liability on his part to pay the amount due. The allegations contained in the complaint are contrary to above submissions of the opposite party and also false and frivolous. It is pertinent to note that after filing of the complaint on 28.07.2014 the complainant had made a part payment of Rs.25,000/- on 06.08.2014 towards the Loan-cum hypothecation agreement which clearly reveals the fact that there is no manipulation of records as alleged by the complainant.
8. After the notice date 04.06.2014, the complainant had approached the opposite party and undertook and promised to settle and pay the amount due under agreement and instead of, the complainant has filed the present complaint. The allegations that the complainant was put to create mental agony and shock and that the records were manipulated are all baseless and therefore there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
9. On the side of the complainant, the proof affidavit submitted for his
evidence and Exhibit A1 to A4 are marked. While so, on the side of the opposite party, the proof affidavit is filed along with the documents which are marked as Exhibit B1 and B2.
10. At this juncture, the point for the consideration before this Forum is:
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party as alleged in the complaint?
- To what other reliefs, the complainant entitled to?
11. Written arguments filed by both the parties and the copy of the same has been furnished to either side. In addition to that, oral arguments also adduced on both sides.
12.Point 1: According to the case of the complainant is, that the complainant is an agriculturist and for the agricultural activities he purchased crop harvesting machine with the financial assistance of the opposite party and thereby he has paid a sum of Rs.5,25,000/- towards the loan amount, but he was informed that the loan due is of Rs.6,00,000/- which is arbitrary and so that a legal was issued to the opposite party for proper statement of account. But till date the opposite party has not complied the demand of the complainant and thereby causing mental agony due to the deficiency of service.
13. On the other hand, it is contended by the opposite party that in fact, the complainant is not a consumer because he has purchased the machine only for commercial purpose which is admitted, even in the complaint itself and therefore this complaint is not at all maintainable and moreover the complainant was irregular in paying the monthly installment and he is a chronic defaulter and therefore the total sum of Rs. 6,54,004/- due as on 08.01.2015 and the opposite party ready to avail the statement of account and therefore there is no deficiency in service and he is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant.
14. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that the duty cast upon the complainant to prove his case by means of relevant and consistent evidence. First of all, on going through the proof affidavit of the complainant, it is learnt that there is no dispute regarding the loan sanctioned by the opposite party a sum of Rs.5,25,000/- on 20.02.2012 and also it is agreed to repay the said loan amount in 30 equal monthly installment of Rs.27,122/- per month and thereby a last installment falls on 27.07.2014.
15. At the outset, the first point to be decided is whether the complainant is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act 1986. As per the contention of the opposite party that the complainant himself averred in the complaint, that he is doing the agriculturists activities throughout the state and neighboring states and for the purpose he had purchased the crop harvesting machine, which is patently revealed the fact that the availing of loan by the complainant is not for personal purpose or for his livelihood and it is purely for commercial purpose for earning profit and hence the complainant is not a consumer as contemplated under Consumer Protection Act 1986.
16. At this instance, the learned counsel for the complainant would submit that the complainant had purchased the crop harvesting machine only for his livelihood. But at the same time there is not even a single word averred either in the complaint or in the proof affidavit, that the complainant had purchased the crop harvesting machine only for his livelihood, but per contra, it is clearly stated in the complaint that the complainant is having agricultural activities throughout the states as well as other states and there was at demand in Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka for crop harvesting machine from the averment. It is quite clear that, as rightly pointed out by the opposite party that the crop harvesting machine as alleged, the complainant was purchased only for earning profit and not for his personal usage. While so, there is no document produced by the complainant in order to show that the complainant is having any piece of agricultural land for his livelihood. From the above said facts and contention raised by the opposite party, it goes without saying that the complainant has purchased the crop harvesting machine only for commercial purpose not for his livelihood. Hence, it needless to say that the complainant is not a consumer as contemplated under Consumer Protection Act 198.
17. The next point is to be taken into consideration is, whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. First of all, it is learnt from the evidence of the complainant that the opposite party has failed to furnish the statement of account and without the consent of the complainant, the opposite party himself rescheduled the account. Regarding this, on seeing the Exhibit A1 and A3, they are the repayment schedule issued by the complainant, Exhibit A4 is the legal notice and the Exhibit A5, is the postal acknowledge which are not is dispute. In respect of Exhibit A2, which is the receipt of payment dated 28.02.2012 of Rs.29,000/- to be first installment paid by the complainant. If it is so, Exhibit B1, clearly reveals the fact that the Exhibit A3 was issued only after Exhibit A2. In between Exhibit A2 and B1, there is no payment towards installment paid by the complainant. Such being so, from the Exhibit B1, it is clear that, after issuing of Exhibit A3 only, the complainant paid some amount then and there till 06.08.2014 and thereby the total sum paid of Rs.4,04,500/-. In such situation Exhibit B2 brought the fact that the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.25,000/- on 06.08.2014 even after this complaint has been filed before this Forum and during pendency.
18. From the foregoing facts, it is clearly placed the fact that the complainant is a
chronic defaulter and the complainant himself admitted the rescheduled of accounts (Exhibit A1 & A3) issued by the opposite party and then only he has started the payment of installment only from the month of November 2012. Therefore, the Exhibit A3, ‘reschedule of account’, has been calculated without the consent of the complainant automatically goes out and becomes futile. Not only that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party in this regard.
19. The next thing is to be considered is whether the opposite party has failed to furnish the statement of account as alleged in the legal notice. Regarding this point, this Forum wish to enlighten that there is every possibility to the complainant, to get the relief by means of submitting the petition under the Right to Information Act 1986, when the opposite party has not a come forward to furnish any details of account and therefore there is no need of filing this complaint before this Forum.
20. In such circumstances, on careful perusal of the evidence and the
documents filed on both sides, it is crystal clear that no proof placed before this Forum for the payment of Rs.5,25,000/- as narrated by the complainant in the complaint and thereby the complainant has not moved this Forum with clean hands. Similarly, it is seen that the complainant is a chronic defaulter, it is a settled position of Law that he is not entitled for any relief. At the outset, regarding the other allegations as alleged by the complainant against the opposite party have not been proved be means of acceptable evidence.
21. In the light of above facts and observation made by the both sides this Forum hold without any hesitation that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the same has also not been proved by the complainant. Thus the point no.1 is answered accordingly.
22. Point 2: As per the decision arrived in point no.1, the complainant is
not entitled for any relief as prayed in the complaint. Thus, the point no.2 is answered accordingly.
In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No cost.
Dictated by the president to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized
by him, correctly by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this 22nd December 2015.
Sd/-*** Sd/-***
MEMBER I PRESIDENT
List of Documents filed by the complainant
Ex.A1/Dt. : Repayment schedule of the complainant given by the opposite
party.
Ex.A2/Dt.28.02.2012: Copy of the payment receipt paid by the complainant given by the
opposite party.
Ex.A3/Dt. : Repayment schedule of the complainant given by the opposite
party.
Ex.A4/Dt.04.06.2014: Office copy of the legal notice sent by the complainant’s counsel
to the opposite party.
Ex.A5/Dt. : Postal acknowledgement card of the opposite party.
List of documents of the opposite party:
Ex.B1/Dt.01.08.2015: Statement of account of the complainant issued by the opposite
party.
Ex.B2/Dt.06.08.2014: Payment receipt of the complainant given by the opposite party.
Sd/-*** Sd/-***
MEMBER I PRESIDENT
