Andhra Pradesh

Kurnool

CC/111/2008

L. Sardar Ahmed, S/o. Nazeer Ahmed, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shri Ram City Union Finance Limited, Divisional Office, Represented by its Divisional Manager - Opp.Party(s)

Sri. K. Ravi Kumar

30 Jan 2009

ORDER

Heading1
Heading2
 
Complaint Case No. CC/111/2008
 
1. L. Sardar Ahmed, S/o. Nazeer Ahmed,
H.No.17/103,R.K.street, Kurnool-518001
Kurnool
Andhra Pradesh
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Shri Ram City Union Finance Limited, Divisional Office, Represented by its Divisional Manager
2nd Floor, D.No. 40-384, Flot No.28 to 36, U-con Plaza, Park Road, Kurnool-518 001.
Kurnool
Andhra Pradesh
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Sri.K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Smt.C.Preethi, M.A., L.L.B., MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
ORDER

Cond.,
- 1 -
BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri.K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B President
And
Smt. C.Preethi, M.A.LL.B., Lady Member
Friday the 30th day of January , 2009.
C.C.No. 111/08
Between:
L. Sardar Ahmed,
S/o. Nazeer Ahmed,
H.No.17/103,
R.K.street,
Kurnool – 518 001. … Complainant
Versus
Shri Ram City Union Finance Limited,
Divisional Office,
Represented by its Divisional Manager,
2nd Floor, D.No. 40-384, Flot No.28 to 36,
U-con Plaza, Park Road,
Kurnool – 518 001. … Opposite party
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the
presence of Sri. K. Ravi Kumar, Advocate, for the complainant, and Sri.
S. Sivaramakrishna Prasad, Advocate, for the opposite party and upon
perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri. K.V.H. Prasad, President )
C.C.No.111/08
1. This case of the complainant is filed U/s 2 (i) (g) and Sec. 12 of C.P.Act
seeking direction on the opposite party to give repossession of the seized
TATA Sumo Vehicle bearing No. AP 11 – G – 0369 to the complainant or in
alternative to pay to the complainant Rs. 3 lakhs towards the cost of the
Vehicle , pay Rs. 750/- per day till repossession towards loss of income ,
Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony along with interest at 18%
p.a and cost of the case alleging the deficiency of service and unfair
trade practice of the opposite party in seizing the above said Vehicle on
29-01-2008 forcibly from complainant and not releasing the Vehicle inspite
of payment of Rs.10,000/- on 31-01-2008 as demanded by the opposite
Cond.,
- 2 -
party and thereafter giving evasive and false replies as to default of
installments to the notice of the complainant . On account of said illegal
seizer the complainants livelihood @ Rs.750/- per day suffered besides to
ensual of mental agony and cost of the vehicle .
2. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this forum as to this case of
the complainant the opposite party caused its appearance through its
counsel and contested the case denying any of its liability to the
complainants claim seeking dismissal of complainants case alleging the
seizer of the complainants vehicle was in the capacity of hypothecatee
consequent to complainants defaultive conduct in payment of monthly
installments under hypothecation agreement and holding sale of said vehicle
after causing second pre sale notice and realizing Rs.1,15,000/- by said sale
and complainant still holding a due of Rs.41,478/- on adjustment of the
earlier installments and of the amount realized through sale and the case
of the complainant is to avoid the said liability in suppression of real facts
and as said sale was held in pursuance of the terms of hypothecation any
liability of the opposite party even to pay Rs.3 lakhs to complainant as cost
of the said vehicle and any damages at Rs.750/- per day and any
compensation for alleged mental agony .
3. In substantiation of the contentions while the complainant side has
taken reliance on documentary record in Ex.A1 to A5 and his sworn affidavit
of the complainant , the opposite party side has taken reliance on
documentary record in Ex.B1 to B4 besides to his sworn affidavit.
4. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant has
made out any of the alleged deficiency and unfair trade practice of the
opposite parties and there by the latter’s liability to the complainants claim.
5. As per the decision of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission , New Delhi in Ram Desh Lahara Vs Magma Leasing Limited
reported in III ( 2006) CPJ 247 (NC) under hire purchase transaction the
financier not renders service to the barrower within the meaning of the
C.P.Act and so the complainant as a barrower under loan cum hypothecation
agreement is not a consumer . Therefore whatever may be gravity or
seriousness of the grievances of the complainant the case of the
complainant cannot be adjudicated by the District Fora under the provision
of C.P.Act especially when the Hon’ble Divisional Bench of A.P High Court in
Cond.,
- 3 -
State Bank of India Vs SB.Shah Ali (died) and others reported in AIR 1995
AP Pg.134 holds the power of hypothecatee to sell the hypothecated
property without intervention of the Court in case of default in installments
and as per the decision in M/s. Gullar Enterprises Private Limited Vs Punjab
National Bank Limited reported in 1993 (2) CPR Pg.652 a conversion of
hypothecated property by a bank abruptly and without notice may give raise
to a civil dispute but not a consumer dispute as defined U/S 2 (1) (e) of
C.P.Act 1986 . Hence the complainant grievances , prima facie , remaining
out of the scope of the enquiry before this forum .
6. As the nature of the grievances of the complainant is not amounting to
any consumer dispute entertainable under C.P.Act by District Fora and if at
all there is any irregulatory and illegality in the Acts of seizure and sale of
hypothica abruptly for default in payment of installment is a civil dispute
addjudicatable by the civil Court alone the decision cited by the complainant
side in its written arguments having any relevancy of their appreciation in
this case.
7. Apart from the above there is any documentary record from the
complainant side envisaging the total discharge of loan amount by the
complainant for the vehicle under hypothecation as the bunch of seven
receipts in Ex.A2 is envisaging the payment of few installments that too to
an extent of Rs. 58,252/- only out of 30 monthly installments schedule @
Rs.7,188/- totaling to Rs. 2,15,640/- . While such is so with the
complainant , it is contended by the opposite party that as an amount of Rs.
1,15,000/- could only be realized from sale of seized vehicle and after
adjusting the said sale amount with the amount of Rs. 58,252/- received
from complainant under paltry installment , still an amount of Rs.41,478/-
is outstanding from the complainant towards the loan availed by the
complainant from the opposite party for purchase of said vehicle under
hypothecation agreement in Ex.B1 . In the absence of any cogent material
evidence as to the total discharge of loan amount by the complainant to the
opposite party , the documentary record in Ex.A1 and A3 to A5 are
remaining of any worthwhile for appreciation in favour of the complainant .
8. consequently , the case of the complainant being devoid of merit and
force and creating any liability of the opposite party to the complainants
claim the case of the complainant is dismissed with cost.
Cond.,
- 4 -
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by
us in the open bench on this the 30th day of January , 2009.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant :Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1. Xerox copy of registration certificate.
Ex.A2. A bunch of 7 receipts.
Ex.A3. Office copy of legal notice dated 08-04-2008 along with
Postal receipt.
Ex.A4. Reply of OP dated 26-04-2008 to Ex.A3.
Ex.A5. After sale notice dated 22-07-2008.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1. Loan cum hypothecation agreement.
Ex.B2. Loan application.
Ex.B3. History sub-ledger 26-08-2008.
Ex.B4. Pre-sale notice dated 31-05-2008.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Sri.K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Smt.C.Preethi, M.A., L.L.B.,]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.