THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH).
DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF JUNE 2021
PRESENT
SRI RAVI SHANKAR – JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI - MEMBER
APPEAL NO. 1744/2012
1. L & T Finance Limited,
8th Floor, Metropolitan, C-25/C-26
‘E’ Block, Bandra – Kurla Complex,
Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051.
2. The Branch Manager,
L & T Finance Limited,
Mehata Complex,
Near Mehata School,
Court Circle, Gulbarga.
……….Appellants.
(By Shri/Smt. S.B.M. Adv.,)
-Versus-
Mr. Satish S/o Nagendrappa,
A/a 25 years, Occ: Agriculturist,
R/o H.No.1/95, Kadaddor Village,
Chittapur Taluk, Gulbarga Dist.
(By Shri/Smt. Nagendra B.R.. Adv.,)
:ORDERS:
BY SMT. SUNITA C. BAGEWADI - MEMBER
This appeal is filed by the appellant/Opposite Parties being aggrieved by the order dated:13.07.2012 passed by Gulbarga District Consumer Commission in C.C.No.139/2011.
2. The parties to the appeal shall be referred to as complainant and Opposite Parties respectively as per their rankings before the District Commission.
3. The brief facts of the complaint is that:-
The complainant has purchased a brand new John Deer Tractor bearing No.KA-32/8301 from M/s Srinivas Motors, Gulbarga by availing a loan of Rs.3,70,000/- from the Opposite Parties in February 2007. The complainant further submitted that he has purchased a trailer by investing his own money of Rs.1,27,000/- which was registered as KA-32:8302. The complainant further submitted that while advancing the loan for purchase of tractor, the Opposite Parties have taken signatures of the complainant on blank printed book let agreement subject to the conditions that within 30 days, duly filled agreement copy singed by the Opposite Party No.1 at Mumbai would be dispatched to the complainant directly, but the Opposite Parties have failed to send the copy of duly filled agreement and they have also not informed about the particulars of the loan and about the particulars of installments and interest and etc. and so the terms and conditions in the said agreement is not binding on the complainant. In spite of it, the complainant sincerely and bonafidely has made repayment of the loan to the tune of Rs.2,34,000/- which is received by the Opposite Parties, for which they have issued cash receipts in the name of the complainant.
3(a) The complainant further submitted that the Opposite Parties without any information and without any prior notice and also without providing sufficient opportunities to the complainant have illegally without following the mandatory procedure repossessed the tractor and the trailer along with other agricultural implements kept in the said trailer such as 1) Koorgi Dindu, 2) Kunti and Negilu, forcibly with coercion taking assistance of Gundas on 15/06/2010. The Opposite Parties have no rights to seize the trailer and the agricultural implements kept therein as they have not advanced any loan for purchasing the same and they are not the subject matter of the agreement. Further, the complainant submitted that he had approached the Opposite Parties with a request to release the said Tractor, trailer and agricultural equipments, but they refused to release the same. Again in the month of October – 2010 the complainant approached the Opposite Party No.2 to release the said tractor and trailer and other equipments stating that he is ready to make payment of Rs.1,00,000/-, but the Opposite Parties demanded the entire outstanding amount and refused to release the same. Subsequently, the Opposite Parties without issuing any prior sale notice and without any prior information to the complainant have illegally sold the said tractor, trailer and other agricultural equipments for lower price on 03.08.2011. The complainant further submitted that the Opposite Parties have issued a legal notice to the complainant on 24/08/2011 claiming a sum of Rs.2,06,718/- from the complainant within 7 days and after receipt of the notice, the complainant got knowledge about the loan agreement, repayment installments, commencing and ending and repossession of the vehicle and sale of the vehicle. So, the complainant gave a reply to the legal notice on 09/09/2011 denying the said claim and also claimed compensation of Rs.11,92,000/- from the Opposite Parties, for which the Opposite Parties have not given any reply and also not paid any compensation. So the complainant is constrained to file this complaint.
4. The Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2 have appeared through their counsel and filed a detailed written version denying the each and every averment made by the complainant with regard to the alleged deficiency in service and contended that the Opposite Parties have sanctioned a loan of Rs.3,70,000/- for purchase of John Deer 2103 H.P.40 Tractor bearing engine No.PY3029D153267 and Chassis No.PY5103 B 013729 along with one number trailer referred in the complaint. To secure the repayment of the said loan, the complainant has hypothecated the said tractor in favour of Opposite Parties by executing the loan cum hypothecation agreement and as per the terms of the said agreement, the complainant was unable to repay the said loan amount together with interest at the agreed rate totally amounting to Rs.5,40,200/- in 8 and ½ yearly installments of Rs.67,525/- each on the respective due dates, as set out in the schedule of the agreement. The first installment was to be paid on or before 15/08/2007 and the last installment was to be paid on or before 15.02.2011.
4(a) The Opposite Parties further contended that they have sent a prepossession notice to the complainant on 01.05.2010 and on service of the said notice, the complainant has failed to repay the loan dues, has voluntarily surrendered the asset on 15.06.2010 and thereafter a pre-sale notice dated:08.06.2010 was sent to the complainant calling upon him to pay Rs.3,41,692/-, but the complainant has failed to repay the said loan and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary cost.
5. After trial, the District Commission, Gulbarga allowed the complaint by directing the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,23,900/- to the complainant together with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization along with Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and cost.
6. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Opposite Parties are in appeal on many grounds.
7. In spite of sufficient opportunities, the respondent has not advanced his arguments. We have heard the arguments of appellant.
8. Perused the appeal memo, order passed by the District Commission, Gulbarga and materials on record, we noticed that it is an admitted fact that the respondent has purchased a tractor bearing registration No.KA-32/8301 by availing loan of Rs.3,70,000/- from Opposite Parties by executing a loan cum hypothecation agreement in the month of February 2007 by hypothecating the Tractor in favour of the Opposite Parties. It is also undisputed fact that the loan amount was agreed to repay together with interest amounting to Rs.5,40,200/- in 8 and ½ yearly installments of Rs.67,525/- each and first installment was to be paid on or before 15.08.2007 and last installment was to be paid on or before 15.02.2011.
9. It is also an admitted fact that the complainant has made loan repayment of Rs.2,34,000/- to the Opposite Parties. Here, the dispute is only that as per the complainant, the Opposite Parties repossessed the Tractor which was hypothecated to Opposite Parties by using the assistance of the Gundas along with Trailer and agricultural equipments i.e., 1) Koorgi Dindu, 2) Kunti and Negilu which was purchased by the Respondent/complainant by investing his own money which are essential in agricultural purpose and sold the same by the Opposite Parties without any prior sale notice and without the knowledge of the complainant and without following the mandatory procedures for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- on 03.08.2011. In spite of adjusting the said amount to the loan dues, the Opposite Parties are shows that there was a balance of Rs.2,06,718/-.
10. Perused the materials on record wherein Credit Approval Memorandum we noticed that in Column No.B it is stated as under:-
B | Loan Summary | Tractor | Trailer Accessories | Total loan amount |
1 | Asset Cost (Rs) | 4,23,780.00 | 1,10,000.00 | 5,33,780.00 |
2 | Margin Money (Rs) | 93,780.00 | 70,000.00 | 1,63,780.00 |
3 | Amount sanctioned (Rs) | 3,30,000.00 | 40,000.00 | 3,70,000.00 |
Further, in the Disbursement Advice list in Loan Details, it is mentioned as under:-
Loan Details | | | | | |
| Tractor | Trailer Accessory | Total | | |
Asset Cost (Rs) | 4,23780.00 | 1,10,000.00 | 5,33,780.00 | Tenure | 48 months Half years |
Margin Money (Rs) | 93,780.00 | 70,000.00 | 1,63,780.00 | No. of Installments | 8 |
Amount Sanctioned (Rs) | 3,30,000.00 | 40,000.00 | 3,70,000.00 | Installment Amount | 67,525.00 |
| | | | 1st Installment Due | 8/15/2007 |
11. That means the Opposite Parties have sanctioned the loan for tractor and trailer also. Moreover, the Opposite Parties have issued pre-possession notice on 01.05.2010 and pre-sale notice on 18.06.2010 to the complainant/respondent, which clearly establishes that the complainant/respondent is a defaulter for payment of the loan amount due as per the terms and conditions of loan cum hypothecation agreement. The complainant is bound by the terms and conditions of the agreement. Hence, in our opinion under the terms and conditions of the loan cum hypothecation agreement, the Opposite Parties were justified for repossessing of the said tractor and trailer and sell it and that the amount adjusted to the loan amount of respondent.
12. Before repossessing the tractor, trailer and other agricultural equipments the Respondent/complainant was required to pay Rs.4,72,675/- in 7 installments, but the Respondent/complainant had paid only Rs.2,33,525/- up-to 28.03.2009. However, the respondent alleges that the Opposite Parties repossessed the tractor, trailer and other agricultural equipments which were purchased by him. But in that regard, the complainant has not produced any material on record that the Opposite Parties were repossessed the other agricultural equipments other than the tractor and trailer. Hence, considering the facts and discussion made here and materials on record, we are of the opinion that there is no any deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties because the complainant/respondent is a defaulter and if he was defaulter, the Opposite Parties have power to reposes the tractor and trailer and sold it and adjusted the amount with the loan amount of the complainant/respondent. Hence, the complainant/respondent is not entitled for any compensation/amount from the Opposite Parties. Hence, the complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be set-aside. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:-
:ORDER:
The appeal filed by the appellant/Opposite Parties is allowed with no order as to costs.
The impugned order dated:13/07/2012 passed by the Gulbarga District Consumer Commission in C.C.No.139/2011 is hereby set-aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent is dismissed.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned District Commission to pay the same to the appellant/Opposite Parties.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as Concerned District Commission.
Sd/- Sd/-
Member. Judicial Member.
Tss
