This C.C. is coming on before us for hearing; in the presence of Sri. Syed Dawood Ali, Advocate for complainant; and of Sri. K.L. Narasimha Rao, K. Girija, Advocates for opposite parties No.1; opposite party No.2 called absent; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-

O R D E R

(Per Sri R.Kiran Kumar, Member)

          This complaint is filed u/sec.12-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2.       The averments made in the complaint are that the complainant is an un-employee, eaking his livelihood, on 29.05.2009 purchased an Auto Rickshaw, under hire purchase agreement with opposite party No.2 as per agreement dt.18.05.2009, the same was incorporated in the certificate of Registration of auto bearing No.AP-20-Y-6570 and the said hire purchase agreement came into existence.  The complainant submitted that as per the hire purchase agreement he is having agreement with opposite party No.2, he had taken the finance from Vijetha Auto Consultant, he paid the installments to the opposite party No.2 and the complainant is not aware that hypothecation is with opposite party No.1.

The complainant further submitted that he borrowed loan amount of Rs.1,30,000/- and paid Rs.1,99,620/-, the financiers failed to give copy of agreement nor giving the payment particulars and demanded more payment.  The complainant also submitted that he paid installments regularly, paid more than a sum of Rs.1,95,000/- to the opposite party No.2 and he requested the opposite party No.2 to give the clearance certificate letter to registration authority, Khammam to free the said Auto Rickshaw from hire purchase.  The complainant further submitted that his requests were unheard by the opposite parties, on the other hand the opposite parties without giving clearance certificate, unauthorisedly without giving prior notice they seized the Auto Rickshaw of complainant on 14.06.2009, 05.10.2011 and 01.02.2012 by using illegal force with the help of their henchmen, after seizing the Auto, every time the opposite parties after 2 or 3 days releasing the Auto Rickshaw, which is a bad practice, vexed with their attitude the complainant issued legal notice on 16.08.2012 and on 05.10.2012 requesting the opposite parties to furnish the documents i.e. copy of agreement dated 18.05.2009, ledger copy of payment made by the complainant including advance paid before entering into the agreement, the terms and conditions and rate of interest etc,.  and the same was received by the opposite parties but the opposite parties failed to furnish the documents nor issued the clearance certificate letter to registration authority, Khammam to free the said Auto Rickshaw from hire purchase, which shows that the opposite parties intentionally avoiding to issue the clearance certificate which amounts to deficiency of service on their part, for that the complainant approached the Forum. 

3.       On behalf of the complainant, the following documents were filed and marked as Exhibits A1 to A4.

Ex.A1:-Cash receipts paid by the complainant to the opposite parties No.1 and 2 (Nos. 30).

Ex.A2:-Photocopy of Certificate of Registration, dt. 29.05.2009. issued by Registering authority, Khammam.

Ex.A3:-Office copy of legal notices (Nos. 2) dt. 16.08.2012 & 05.10.2012.

Ex.A4:-Photocopy of letter addressed by the counsel for complainant to the Superintendent of Post Offices, Khammam. Dt. 04.10.2012.

4.       On receipt of the notice, the opposite party No.1 appeared through their counsel and filed counter.  Opposite party No.2 called absent.   In their counter opposite party No.1 admitted that the complainant is the owner of Auto bearing No. AP-20-Y-6570.  The opposite party No.1 submitted that the said Auto Rickshaw was hypothecated to them and the same was also endorsed on the RC book also, even though the complainant mentioned in his complaint that he was entered into an agreement with opposite party No.2 but the complainant is not having any documentary proof to show that the Auto Rickshaw was hypothecated to opposite party No.2.  The opposite party No.1 further submitted that the contents mentioned in the para No.2 and 3 of the complaint are incorrect and far away from truth and the complainant never paid the total installment amount regularly to the opposite parties and there are so many lapses and delay of payments which also liable to pay the complainant as penalties.  The opposite party No.1 also submitted that they assisted the complainant to purchase the Auto Rickshaw, but there is no relation between the opposite party No.1 and 2, the complainant has failed to prove the relation between opposite parties No. 1 and 2 as such the filing of the receipts by the complainant which issued by the opposite party No.2 is not at all discharge of finance amount to them and they are regularly maintaining the accounts, on the name of the complainant the ledger was maintained by them and as per the ledger the complainant is due of Rs.10,109/-.  The opposite party No.1 further submitted that the very receipts filed by the complainant on the name of the opposite party clearly shows that the complainant never paid the installments regularly and the receipt No.1906, 1992, 2126 and 2390 are evident for irregular payments of the complainant to discharge his liability.  The opposite parties further submitted that the complainant never discharged his duty as a rightful customer, the very receipts filed by the complainant in the name of Vijetha Consultancy i.e. Opposite party No.2 not at all binding on them, the said receipts are with a collusion between the complainant and opposite party No.2 with an intention to create wrongful loss to them and they never committed deficiency of service as mentioned in the complaint, there is no cause of action, the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts because the above said dispute is not the consumer dispute and it will not comes under the definition of consumer protection act, and also as per the agreement there is prior condition that if any disputes arises between the parties and the same has to be referred to the Arbitrator, the complainant violated such conditions filed the present complaint as such this complainant is not maintainable and prayed to dismiss the complaint. 

5.       On behalf of the opposite party No.1 the attested copy of payment details of Auto Rickshaw bearing No. AP-20-Y-6570 is filed and the same is marked as exhibit B1.

6.       Upon perusing the material papers on record, now the points that arose for consideration are,

1. Whether the complainant is entitled for the claim?
2. To what relief?

Point No.1:-

          It is the case of the complainant that he had purchased an Auto Rickshaw on 29.05.2009 under hire purchase agreement with opposite party No.2, the same was incorporated in Certificate of Registration.  According to the complainant the complainant is having agreement with opposite party No.2, he is in the notion that he had taken the Auto Finance from Vijetha Auto Consultant, he paid the installments to the opposite party No.2 and he is not aware that hypothecation is with opposite party No.1.  According to the complainant he borrowed loan of Rs.1,30,000/- and paid Rs.1,99,620/- and even after payment the opposite parties failed to handed over copy of agreement and failed to give payment particulars and demanding more amounts.  According to the complainant he paid installments regularly and he paid more than a sum of Rs.1,95,000/- to the opposite party No.2 and he requested the opposite party No.2 to issue the clearance certificate letter to Registration Authority, Khammam to free the said Auto Rickshaw from hire purchase, as the opposite parties failed to issue clearance certificate and unauthorizedly, without prior notice seized the Auto Rickshaw and returned the same after 2 or 3 days which amounts to deficiency of service as such the complainant approached the Forum for redressal.     

          From the material available on record, we observed that as per Exhibit A2 it is clear that the Auto Rickshaw of the complainant is having hire purchase agreement dt. 29.05.2009 with opposite party No.1.  As per the Exhibit A1 receipts (Nos. 30) filed by the complainant some of the receipts were issued by Vijetha Auto Consultant i.e. opposite party No.2 and some of the receipts were issued by opposite party No.1. Even though there is no agreement between the complainant and opposite party No.2, the complainant paid some installments to opposite party No.2.  The complainant also failed to produce documents to support to his case that he entered into hire purchase agreement with opposite party No.2, he paid Rs.45,000/- as initial payment and Rs.12,000/- on 02.10.2012.  As per Exhibit B1 payment particulars filed by the opposite party No.1 the complainant paid the entire monthly EMI and he has to pay overdue penalty amount of Rs.10,109/-.  From the record we observed that there are several irregularities, done by both parties.  From the date of hire purchase agreement, the complainant and the opposite parties failed to produce sufficient documentary evidence to support their case.  As per the Exhibit B1 payment particulars ledger filed by the opposite party No.1 the complainant paid entire EMI’s in the year November 2011 and after filing of this present case i.e. after lapse of 4 years still the hypothecation agreement stands in the name of opposite party No.1 which gives pain and hardship to the complainant as such we are directing the opposite parties to issue the clearance Certificate letter to the Registration Authorities, Khammam to free his Auto Rickshaw from hire purchase, as such this point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant.  

Point No.2:-

In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, directing the opposite parties to issue the clearance Certificate letter to the Registration Authorities, Khammam, to free the Auto Rickshaw bearing No.AP-20-Y-6570 of the complainant from hire purchase.  There is no order as to costs.

          Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, on this the 21^st day of December, 2015.

 Member                  FAC President             

  District Consumer Forum, Khammam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant                                                       For Opposite party   

       -None-                                                                           -None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant                                                       For Opposite party

     Member                  FAC President             

District Consumer Forum, Khammam