CC Filed on 24.05.2010
Disposed on 24.09.2011
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.
Dated: 24th day of September 2011
PRESENT:
HONORABLE T. RAJASHEKHARAIAH, President.
HONORABLE T.NAGARAJA, Member.
HONORABLE K.G.SHANTALA, Member.
---
Consumer Complaint No. 74/2010
Between:
Smt. Bhagayamma, W/o. Nagaraj, Major in Age, R/o. Masilahalli, Ambajidurga Hobli, Chintamani Taluk, Chickballapur District. (By Advocate Smt. Rathnamma) V/S 1. Mr. Ramesh Chand Kothari, Money Lender, No.39, 1st Anjaneya Temple Street, Link Road, Sheshadripuram, Bangalore – 20. 2. Mr. Syed Nawab, Prop. KBT Auto Consultant-Finance Agent & Transport, Chickballapur Main Road, Kolar – 563 101. (By Advocate Sri. Ziaulla & others) | ….Complainant ….Opposite Parties |
| |
ORDER
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 to issue Clearance Certificate pertaining to LCV New TELCO Company TATA ACE Open Type, 2005 Model vehicle bearing Registration No. KA-10/2026 purchased from its previous owner in 2008 for valuable consideration.
2. The complainant avers that due to financial shortage, she approached the Opposite Party No.2 for financial assistance. The Opposite Party No.2 being the franchise/agent of Opposite Party No.1 assisted her for borrowing money from Opposite Party No.1 to a tune of Rs.75,000/- for purchasing the said vehicle. The complainant undertook to repay the said sum along with interest in 23 installments i.e. Rs.4,500/- in 22 installments and the last installment at Rs.7,500/- and she hypothecated the said vehicle in favour of Opposite Party No.1 and 2. The complainant states further that she paid all the 23 installments between 05.04.2008 and 23.02.2010 and these payments were endorsed by Opposite Party No.1 in a passbook. That after discharging the said loan with interest to a tune of Rs.1,02,000/- (one lakh and two thousand rupees only), she approached Opposite Party No.1 to issue Clearance Certificate, but Opposite Party No.1 and 2 on assured that they would give the same, but went on postponing the same on one pretext or the other. Aggrieved by their acts, she issued legal notice on 24.03.2010. She received reply from Opposite Parties on 29.03.2010 stating that complainant had actually borrowed Rs.1,50,000/- from Opposite Party No.1 undertaking to repay the said sum in 23 installments i.e. Rs.9,000/- each for 22 installments and the last installment is of Rs.7,000/-, but requested that as she was incapable, she would repay installment at the rate of Rs.4,500/-.
3. The Opposite Party No.1 and 2 appeared through their Counsels and filed version and documents. We heard the arguments.
4. From the averments, affidavits and documents filed by the complainant and the Opposite Parties, the following points arise for our consideration:
Point No.1: Whether there is deficiency in service on the
part of Opposite Parties?
Point No.2: If so, to what relief/reliefs the complainant is
entitled to ?
Point No.3: To what order?
5. Our findings to these points are as hereunder:
1. Affirmative
2. Affirmative
3. As per final order.
R E A S O N S
6. Point No.1 and 2: The complainant has filed four documents to prove custody, ownership, hypothecation and vehicle loan. The passbook entries endorsed by Opposite Party No.2 are admitted by Opposite Party No.1. These 23 entries in all total upto Rs.1,02,000/- appears to be the alleged loan amount (of Rs.75,000/-) together with interest. Neither the complainant nor the Opposite Parties have produced loan agreement to show the exact loan amount, rate of interest and other particulars. The Opposite Party No.1 being the custodian of loan agreement has not produced the same to contradict the loan amount as specified by the complainant. As such, the averments made by the complainant in respect of loan amount specified as Rs.75,000/- appears to be more acceptable, though the exact loan amount and interest rate are not forthcoming. The 23 passbook entries endorsed by Opposite Party No.2 and admitted by Opposite Party No.1 which amount to Rs.1,02,000/- only prove that the repayment includes interest on Rs.75,000/- which must have been the loan amount.
The Opposite Parties produced copy of an on demand pro-note for Rs.2,05,000/- (rupees two lakh and five thousand only) but has failed to establish any link between the vehicle loan and this on demand pro-note. The amount shown on demand pro-note Rs.2,05,000/- and the loan amount as contended by Opposite Parties is Rs.1,50,000/- together with interest at 1.5% per month. The Opposite Parties have contended in their version that the vehicle loan amount is Rs.1,50,000/-. Hence the pro-note produced is not relating to this loan as alleged. These two figures do not corresponding. Therefore the two cannot be linked. We are of the opinion that there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 in not issuing Clearance Certificate to the complainant evenafter discharge of vehicle loan as on 23.02.2010. Accordingly we hold point No.1 and 2 in favour of complainant.
7. Point No.3: As point No.1 and 2 is held in positive, we pass the following.
O R D E R
The complaint is allowed. The Opposite Party No.1 and 2 are hereby directed to issue Clearance Certificate, pertaining to LCV New TELCO Company TATA ACE Open Type, 2005 model vehicle bearing Registration No. KA-10/2026, within 7 days from the date of this order. The Opposite Party No.1 and 2 shall pay costs of Rs.5,000/- jointly and severally.
Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 24th day of September 2011.
T. NAGARAJA K.G.SHANTALA T. RAJASHEKHARAIAH
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
