BEFORE THE A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
AT HYDERABAD.
F.A. 1513/2008 against C.C. 602/2007, Dist. Forum, Khammam
Between:
Smt. S. Ramadevi,
W/o. Sanghi Shetty Srinivas
Age: 35 years, H.No. 9-135
Seetharampuram, Miryalguda
Nalgonda Dist. *** Appellant/
Complainant.
. And
M/s. Sundaram Finance Ltd.
D.No. 11-2-16 to 19,
Abida Enclave, 1st Floor
Wyra Road, Khammam Dist.
Rep. by its Managing Director. *** Respondent/Op
Counsel for the Appellant: M/s. K. Visweswara Rao
Counsel for the Resp: M/s. K.R.L. Sharma.
CORAM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
&
SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER
TUESDAY, THIS THE TWELFTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND TEN
Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)
*****
1) Appellant is unsuccessful complainant.
2) The case of the complainant in brief is that she is the owner of a bus and borrowed Rs. 3 lakhs under hire purchase scheme from the respondent agreeing to repay the same in 12 monthly instalments at Rs. 26,950/- with a penal clause that she had to pay interest @ 30% if there was any delay in payment. She repaid the entire amount on 21. 8.2006 on which the respondent had to return the contract termination papers along with No Objection Certificate (NOC) for enabling deletion of hypothecation clause. Despite her requests it did not issue. In fact the bus was plying for APSRTC under hire agreement. On that she surrendered the vehicle; the concerned RTA authorities put the vehicle in stoppage condition w.e.f. 19.5.2006 due to which the value of the bus was
depreciated. She had sustained huge loss of Rs. 3 lakhs. Since she could not maintain the bus, she gave special power of attorney to one Sri G. Bikshapathi to
maintain on her behalf. When G. Bikshapathi was claiming the ownership she had cancelled the special GPA on which he filed O.S. No. 127/2006 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Khammam against her as well as the respondent. No relief was claimed against the respondent. However, it deposited the documents in the said suit without there being any order from the court. It was apparent that it intends to cause loss to her. Therefore she filed the complaint for return of the documents along with NOC certificate; reimbursement of Rs. 2 lakhs towards the loss sustained by her together with Rs. 1 lakh towards compensation for mental agony and Rs. 20,000/- towards costs.
3) The respondent resisted the case. While admitting that the complainant had borrowed the amount under hire purchase agreement it alleged that one G. Bikshapathi filed O.S. No. 127/2006 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Khammam against it and obtained interim injunction against it from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the bus. He has been in continuous possession and enjoyment thereof. When possession is with third party the relief claimed by the complainant was to harass it. Earlier also she borrowed amounts for some other vehicles. The suit was filed before payment of entire instalments under the hire purchase agreement and when title over the bus was in dispute and the documents were with Civil Court it neither could return nor issue NOC certificate. She could have filed a petition before the Civil Court for return of the documents. When interim injunction was obtained it could return the documents. The stoppage of the vehicle was due to agreement with APSRTC and that too at her request, in view of the dispute between her and the third party. When the documents were with the Civil Court it could not return the documents. There was no consumer relationship between them. This is clear abuse of process of law when suit is pending before a competent civil court. There is arbitration clause and therefore the Dist. Forum has no jurisdiction, There was no deficiency in service on its part and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs.
4) The complainant in proof of her case filed the affidavit evidence and did not choose to file any documents while the respondent filed certified copy of interim injunction order in I.A. No. 422/2006 in O.S. No. 27/2006 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Khammam.
5) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that one G. Bikshapathi filed a suit before the competent civil court obtained orders of injunction, and the respondent had deposited all the documents pertaining to the contract with the Civil Court. Since the suit being pending before the Senior Civil Judge Court, Khammam, and in the light of orders of injunction the complaint was not maintainable, and accordingly dismissed the complaint.
6) Aggrieved by the said decision, the complainant preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate either facts or law in correct perspective. The respondent ought not to have deposited the title deeds or documents before the Civil Court in a suit filed by one G. Bikshapathi wherein the respondent was made as a proforma party where no relief was claimed against it. When she paid the entire amount the respondent ought to have returned her papers along with NOC certificate while the dispute between her and G. Bikshapathy had no concern.
7) The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law?
8) It is an undisputed fact that the complainant had borrowed the amount under hire purchase agreement pertaining to her bus with the respondent and she cleared the loan on 21.8.2006. In the ordinary course of nature the complainant would be entitled for return of documents with endorsement of discharge of loan and cancellation of hire purchase agreement together with NOC certificate. However the fact remains that one G. Bikshapathy filed a suit against the complainant in O.S. No. 127/2006 claiming ownership of the bus. Obviously the complainant was instrumental for G. Bikshapathy to claim the bus in view of special GPA executed in his favour by her. The bus was hired to APSRTC. Later G. Bikshpathy claimed that the bus belonged to him for which a suit was filed for declaration not only against complaint but also against the respondent finance company. The finance company filed the documents in the said suit. G. Bikshapathy had obtained an order of injunction against the parties. The finance company filed a memo before the Civil Court while depositing contract termination papers they are required for cancellation of hire purchase agreement endorsement in the registration certificate of the vehicle. A copy of memo dt. 27.12.2006 finds a place in the record. It is not known why the complainant did not take any steps for return of the documents on the ground that the dispute between her and G. Bikshpathy had nothing to do with these documents. At the cost of repetition, we may state that G. Bikshapathy had been admittedly running the bus and obtained temporary injunction against the complainant not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. Naturally he must have R.C. book to run. If the relief sought by the complainant is acceded to undoubtedly she would get R.C. book while G. Bikshapathy is running the bus. At any rate, when the title is in dispute in a civil court and in the light of orders of injunction issued in favour of G. Bikshpathy the Dist. Forum could not direct the respondent to return the documents with NOC certificate. More so, when it was deposited with the Civil Court on 7.6.2006. This complaint was filed on 13.4.2007, before the Dist. Forum subsequent to the suit filed by G. Bikshapathy claiming title over the property.
9) It is patent that the parties are recoursing to Consumer Fora despite a Civil Suit is pending obviously as no court fee need be paid. This could be termed as abuse of process of law. At the cost of repetition the complainant could as well approach the Civil Court for return of documents since the Civil Court has already seized the jurisdiction over the matter. It is no longer a consumer dispute in the light of suit being pending before the Civil Court. We do not see any mis-appreciation of fact or law by the Dist. Forum in this regard. We do not see any merits in the appeal.
10) In the result the appeal is dismissed. No costs.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
Dt. 12. 10. 2010.
*pnr
“C. CHECK C. TITLE – CORRECTED – O.K.”
