Andhra Pradesh

East Godwari-II at Rajahmundry

CC/50/2015

Hema Galidevara - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. Sriram City Union Finance Ltd., Rep. by its Divisional Manager, - Opp.Party(s)

N. Swarnapapa

20 Jul 2016

ORDER

                                                                                                Date of filing:   25.08.2015

                                                                                                Date of Order: 20.07.2016

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM-II, EAST GODAVARI

DISTRICT AT RAJAHMUNDRY

 

                          PRESENT:   Smt H.V. Ramana, B.Com., L.L.M.,   PRESIDENT(FAC)

                      Sri A. Madhusudana Rao, M.Com., B.L., MEMBER          

    

                   Wednesday, the 20^th day of July, 2016

 

 

C.C.No.50 /2015

Between:-

 

Hema Galidevara, W/o. Suryanarayana, Hindu,

Age 35 years, Housewife, resident of D.No.1-156,

Ch. Gunnepalli, Mummidivaram Mandal, E.G. Dist.                             …        Complainant

 

                                    And

 

 

1)  M/s. Sriram City Union Finance Ltd.,

      Rep. by its Divisional Manager, No.123,

      Angappa Naickan Street,  Chennai – 600001.

 

2)  M/s. Sriram City Union Finance Ltd.,

      Rep. by its Branch Manager, Amalapuram,

      E.G. Dist.                                                                                     …        Opposite parties

 

 

 

            This case coming on 08.07.2016 for final hearing before this Forum in the presence of Smt.N. Swarnapapa, Advocate for the complainant and Sri K.S. Laxminarayana, Advocate for the 1^st opposite party and the 2^nd opposite party having been set ex-parte, and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum has pronounced the following:  

 

 

O R D E R

[Per Smt.H.V. Ramana, Member & President(FAC)] 

This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/Sec.12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.40,000/- with interest at 24% p.a. from 24.10.2014 to 16.8.2015 and pay subsequent interest at 12% p.a. from 17.8.2015 till realization; pay Rs.10,000/- towards damages for mental agony and harassment and pay Rs.2,000/- towards expenditure and costs.

2.         The case of the complainant is that the opposite parties are doing hire purchase business. The complainant entered into a hire purchase agreement on 26.12.2013 with regard to a four wheeler i.e. Tata Indigo bearing registration No.AP31BG 8559. The above said hire purchase agreement being for a period of 24 months starting from 26.12.2013. The monthly installment being Rs.16,250/- and she paid 8 monthly installments regularly on time. The complainant submits that due to her financial crisis, she intend to dispose off her four wheeler after making payment of 8 EMIs totaling a sum of Rs.16,250 X 8 = Rs.1,30,000/-. When she approached the 2^nd opposite party for concluding the agreement before time, the 2^nd opposite party insisted for making payment of entire period i.e. for 16 EMIs at a time then only the 2^nd opposite party will issue No objection letter etc. As there is no other go, the complainant made payment of entire amount i.e. Rs.16,250 X 16 = Rs.2,60,000/- on 9.4.2014. The complainant submits that the loan amount is Rs.3 lakhs and hire purchase finance charges being Rs.90,000/- for 24 months. The complainant paid 8 EMIs in time and the remaining 16 EMIs at a time on 9.4.2014. The hire purchase charges for 16 months being Rs.60,000/-. The complainant is entitled for a rebate of 2/3^rd of the hire purchase charges as per Section 9 of the Hire Purchase Act 1972. Thus, the complainant is entitled for return of Rs.40,000/- by way of rebate under the law. The complainant got issued a legal notice dt.24.10.2014 to the 2^nd opposite party, the 2^nd opposite party received the notice and kept quiet without complying the demand. Hence, the complaint.  

3.         The 1^st opposite party filed its written version and denied the allegations made by the complainant and the complaint is not maintainable either under law or on facts. The Hon’ble Forum is not having jurisdiction to trial the case. It is true that the complainant has entered into an Hire purchase agreement bearing No.AMLPMFW 312260002 to purchase Tata Indigo car bearing No.AP 31 BG 8559 and availed loan amount of Rs.3 lakhs. It is true that as per the terms of the agreement, the loan amount has to be repaid with interest at the rate of 15% in 24 equated monthly installments at the rate of amount of Rs.16,250/-. In case of dishonor of cheque issued by the complainant, the complainant has agreed to pay additional finance charges @ 3% p.a. for each such dishonor of cheque. The complainant is also agreed to pay cheque return charges. The allegation that the complainant has paid 8 installments and approached the opposite party for concluding the contract in advance and she was forced to pay the balance 16 installments to issue no objection letter etc. and as there was no other go the complainant has made entire amount of Rs.16,250/- x 16 + 2,60,000/- on 9.4.2014 is not true and correct. The further allegation that the complainant has paid 16 EMI’s at a time on 9.4.2014 being Hire purchase charges of Rs.60,000/- and the complainant is entitled for a rebate of 2/3^rd of Hire purchase charges as per Section 9 of the Hire Purchase Act 1972, thus the complainant is entitled for return of Rs.40,000/- by way of rebate under the law is not true and correct. The complainant is not entitled for any interest on rebate amount at the rate of 24% p.a. from the date of legal notice dt.24.10.2014 till realization as claimed in the complaint. This opposite party has not received any notice much less the alleged legal notice dt.24.10.2014. The complainant has suppressed the real facts and got filed the present complaint to gain wrongfully. It is submitted that as per the terms of the loan agreement entered between the complainant and the opposite party, the loan amount of Rs.3 lakhs has to be repaid with interest at 24% p.a. in 24 equated installments amounting Rs.3,90,000/-. As the complainant intended to settle the due amount of Rs.2,60,000/- payable future 16 installments in advance, the opposite party as per the company norms and terms and conditions has taken only Rs.2,30,000/- from the complainant and given discount of Rs.30,000/-. The complainant has paid the compromise amount of Rs.2,30,000/- on 4.9.2014 towards full satisfaction of the loan amount. The complainant has to pay foreclosure charges. The receipt dt.1.7.2014 of Rs.16,250/- is paid towards 8^th installment. Hence, the complainant once again cannot claim discount or rebate if any as the account was closed and the complainant has voluntarily paid the due amount after agreeing for the discount given by the opposite party. There is no cause of action for filing this complaint and the complainant is not a consumer and the Hon’ble Forum is not having jurisdiction and hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.

4.         The proof affidavit filed by the complainant and Exs.A1 to A6 have been marked for the complainant. The proof affidavit filed by the 1^st opposite party and Exs.B1 and B2 have been marked for the 1^st opposite party.

5.         Heard both sides. The 1^st opposite party filed written arguments.

6.         Points raised for consideration are:

 

    1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

            2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs asked for?

            3. To what relief?

 

7.  POINT Nos.1 & 2:  The admitted facts of both sides are that the complainant purchased the vehicle under Loan-cum-Hypothecation agreement with the 1^st opposite party vide Ex.B2. The said agreement is for a period of 24 months starting from 26.12.2013 at a monthly installment of Rs.16,250/-. The complainant paid 8 installments i.e. a total of Rs.1,30,000/-. The complainant filed statement of account dt.3.9.2014 vide Ex.A1 and paid an amount of Rs.1,13,750/-. Later he paid another installment of Rs.16,250/- vide Ex.A2 for the month of July, 2014, in total the complainant paid Rs.1,30,000/- for 8 installments. The complainant submitted that she approached the opposite party as she could not pay the EMIs due to financial crisis and she wants to dispose of the vehicle which is under hypothecation. She also submitted that the opposite party informed her to make the entire payment i.e. 16 EMIs, then only they can issue no objection letter. Then the complainant paid the balance amount to the opposite parties vide Ex.A3, in which she paid a total amount of Rs.2,30,000/-, in which she paid Rs.2,29,198/- as the due amount and Rs.802/- as cheque bounce charges. The opposite party issued no objection letter vide Ex.A4.

           The complainant contended that the opposite party failed to pay 2/3^rd of rebate of the hire purchase charges as per Section 9 of Hire Purchase Act, 1972 and she is entitled for return of Rs.40,000/- by way of rebate under the law. The complainant requested the opposite party when they failed to respond she gave a legal notice vide Ex.5 and the postal receipt is marked as Ex.A6.

The complainant further contended that the total loan amount is Rs.3,00,000/- and hire purchase finance charges being Rs.90,000/- for 24 months, in which the complainant paid 8 EMIs and the remaining amount paid on 9.4.2014. The remaining hire purchase charges for remaining 16 months is about Rs.60,000/-.

            The opposite party submitted that the complainant is not entitled for a rebate of 2/3^rd of hire purchase charges as per Section 9 of Hire Purchase Act, 1972 and she is not entitled Rs.40,000/- by way of rebate under the law.  As per terms and conditions of hypothecation, the opposite party informed the complainant that under the condition of prepayment of loan amount vide Ex.B2 and the same is accepted and signed by her. The opposite party also filed the final statement of account of complainant dated 29.9.2014 vide Ex.B1, in which it is clearly mentioned that the complainant paid an amount of Rs.2,29,198/- and they also charged cheque bouncing charges of Rs.802/-.

            The opposite party contended that the complainant is not entitled for any relief as they have already given a discount of Rs.30,000/- to her and she is not entitled for any interest or damages from this opposite party.

After perusing the material on record and the documents, the opposite party filed the material of Hire Purchase Act 1972, in which they relied under Section 9, sub section 2. But, as per Ex.B2, the complainant purchased the vehicle under Loan-cum-Hypothecation Agreement, no where it is mentioned that the complainant purchased the vehicle under Hire Purchase Agreement but she entered into the Hypothecation Agreement and signed under the agreement and admitted the terms and conditions of the agreement. As far as Hire Purchase Act, 1972 is concerned, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, but the present case on hand is under the purchase of hypothecation, but not as per Hire purchase agreement. In this case, the opposite party has given the discount of Rs.30,802/- to the complainant for pre-closure of the loan amount and he also gave a detailed statement to that extent vide Ex.B1. As per as Section 9 (2) of Hire purchase Act, 1972 is concerned is not applicable on the present case on hand.

With the above discussion and under the facts and circumstances of the case, we opined that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.       

 

8.   POINT No.3:  In the result, the complaint is dismissed, without costs.

 

   Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum, on this the 20^th day of July, 2016.

    

                   Sd/-                                                                                          Sd/-

              MEMBER                                                                              PRESIDENT(FAC)

         

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

 

FOR COMPLAINANT: None.                                         FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES: None.

 

DOCUMENTS MARKED

 

FOR COMPLAINANT:

 

 

 

 

Ex.A1    dt/3.9.2014        Statement of account pertaining to complainant’s account

Ex.A2    dt/1.7.2014        Receipt for Rs.16,250/-

Ex.A3    dt/4.9.2014        Receipt for Rs.2,29,198/-

Ex.A4    dt/8.10.2014      No objection letter and Form 35 issued by Authorized signatory

Ex.A5    dt/24.10.2014   Legal notice given to the 2^nd opposite party

Ex.A6    dt/25.10.2014   Postal receipt evidencing dispatch of legal notice                         

 

FOR 1^st OPPOSITE PARTY:-   

 

Ex.B1    dt/23.11.2015    Hire ledger summary

Ex.B2    dt/26.12.2013    Loan-cum-Hypothecation Agreement

 

                  Sd/-                                                                                            Sd/-

              MEMBER                                                                              PRESIDENT(FAC)