Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/192/2018

G.H.Hanumanthappa S/o late Gowdra Hanumanthappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shriram Transport Fiance co ltd.,represented by its Manager - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.R.Jagadeesh

11 Apr 2019

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:09/10/2018

DISPOSED      ON:11/04/2019

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

CC.NO:192/2018

 

DATED: 11^th APRIL 2019

PRESENT :-     SRI.T.N.SREENIVASAIAH :   PRESIDENT                                     B.A., LL.B.,

                        SMT. JYOTHI RADHESH JEMBAGI

BSc.,MBA., DHA.,                LADY MEMBER

 

……COMPLAINANT/S	G.H. Hanumanthappa S/o Late Gowdra Hanumanthappa, Aged about 44 years, Agriculturist and owner of TATA Lorry/vehicle 989, Bearing No. KA-16-B.254, TATA LPT1109 FBT Engine No.497TC93MTZ160981, Chassis No.416403MTZ230271, R/o Meghalahalli, Kadleguddu post, Hireguntanur Hobli, Chitradurga Taluk.   (Rep by Sri.R. Jagadeesh, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTY	Shriram Transport Finance Co., Limited, Represented by its Present Manager and P.A. Holder, Branch Office at P.B. Road, Chitradurga City.   (Rep by Sri.Ananthkumar S. Habib, Advocate)

ORDER

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH:   PRESIDENT

The above complaint has been filed by the complainant u/Sec.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 for the relief to direct the OP to return back the lorry, failing which to pay a sum of Rs.17,66,000/- towards compensation/damages, loss of earnings, mental agony, costs and  to grant such other reliefs.

2.      The brief facts of the case of the above complainant are that, he is an agriculturist by profession has availed loan of Rs.4,50,000/- from the OP in the year 2015 for the purpose of purchasing Tata Lorry 989 for hire/transportation agreeing to repay the loan amount along with interest to the OP in equated monthly installments of Rs.14,600/-. The same has been registered before the RTO, Chitradurga.  Accordingly, the complainant has mortgaged his agricultural property bearing sy.No.34/4 measuring 1-acre 05-guntas of irrigated land situated at Meghalahalli village, Hireguntanur Hobli as a collateral security.  Further the complainant in all has paid a sum of Rs.15,66,000/- i.e., more than the loan availed.  Further the OP has claimed Rs.4,00,000/- towards interest  portion, which is contrary to the interest Act, which is impermissible as per law.  Thereafter, the OP had illegally seized and took possession of the said lorry from the complainant in the month of July 2018 without issuing any notice.  After illegal seizing of the said lorry, the complainant has sold the same for a meager amount.  The complainant made several requests and agreed to pay the interest, but the OP refused to receive the same.  The OP illegally took possession of the vehicle from the complainant, it is contrary to the principles of natural justice and violation of terms and conditions of the agreement.  Before seizing of the vehicle, the OP has not followed the procedure as contemplated under law.  The complainant has issued legal notice to the OP on 25.09.2018 calling upon to hand over the possession of the said vehicle or to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards incurring financial loss, damage, mental agony and illegal acts.  Due to illegal seizing of the lorry, the complainant has put to great loss, hardship which cannot be compensated by the OP and hence prays for allow the complaint.

3.      On service of notice, OP appeared through Sri. K.B. Chandrappa, Advocate and filed version denying all the allegations made in the complaint. 

According to the version filed by the OP, it is true that, the complainant has obtained loan from the OP for the purpose of purchasing the Tata lorry heavy goods vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-16 B-0254 of the model 2009 by hypothecating the same to the OP company.  The contents of para 3 to 10 are denied as false and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same.  Due to non return of the loan amount obtained by the complainant, the OP has issued notice to the complainant demanding to repay the loan installment amount along with interest.  By that time, the complainant has failed to pay the same.  Therefore, the OP has issued seizure notice to the complainant.  After service of the seizing notice, the OP with the help of Police has seized the said vehicle.  After seizing the vehicle, the OP has issued notice to the complainant and given 15 days time to take back the seized vehicle by clearing the installment due or loan amount.  By that time also, the complainant has failed to repay the same.  Thereafter the OP has filed a suit before the Hon’ble Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga in AA No.1/2019 u/Sec.9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act praying to grant mandatory injunction directing the respondent to handover the Tata LBT Lorry vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-16 B-0254 to the custody of the petitioner company.  Along with that, the OP has filed an application seeking permission to seize the schedule from the custody of the complainant.  After issuing seizing notice to the complainant, the complainant appeared through his Advocate and filed version.  After that, on 25.01.2019, the complainant and OP has settled the matter between them and accordingly, one Sri. K.B. Chandrappa, Advocate appeared on behalf of OP and Sri. R. Jagadeesh, Advocate appeared on behalf of complainant and filed joint compromise petition u/Sec.23 Rule 3 of the CPC and the complainant agreed to pay the amount of Rs.2,35,000/- towards full and final settlement and on that day itself, the complainant has paid Rs.1,10,000/- to the OP and agreed to pay the remaining amount on or before 20.02.2019.  Such, being the case, the question of deficiency of service does not arise and hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      Complainant himself has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.A-1 to A-6 were got marked and closed his side.   OP has examined one Sri. Hanumanthappa, the GPA Holder of OP as DW-1 and relied on Ex.B-1 to B-7 and closed their side.

 

5.      Arguments heard.

6.      Now the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaints are that;

(1)  Whether the complainant proves that the OP has committed deficiency of service while seizing the vehicle without following the procedure as per law and entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in the above complaint?

              (2) What order?

         7.       Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

                    Point No.1:- In Negative. 

                    Point No.2:- As per final order.

REASONS

8.      Point No.1:- There is no dispute between the parties that, complainant has obtained loan from the OP for the purpose of purchasing the lorry.  After obtaining the loan, the complainant has failed to pay the loan amount to the OP.  After that, the OP has issued notice to the complainant demanding to repay the loan amount along with interest.  By that time, the complainant has failed to repay the same.  Again the OP has issued final notice to the complainant and demanded to pay the loan obtained.  But the complainant has stated in his complaint that, the OP has seized the vehicle without following the procedure as per law.  But as per the documents produced by both the parties, it clearly shows that, the OP has not seized the vehicle.  The OP has filed the Arbitration case before the Hon’ble Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga seeking permission to seize the vehicle from the custody of the complainant.  By that time, the complainant appeared before the Hon’ble District and Sessions Judge and thereafter filed a joint compromise petition.  The complainant agreed to pay the amount of Rs.2,35,000/- to the OP and paid a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- and agreed to pay the remaining amount of Rs.1,25,000/- on or before 20.02.2019.  Such being the case, the question of deficiency of service on the part of OP does not arise.  Hence, the OP has not committed any deficiency of service. 

9.      We have gone through the entire documents filed by both the sides.  It clearly goes to show that, the complainant has obtained loan from the OP for the purpose of purchasing the above said lorry.  But the complainant has failed to repay the installments along with interest to the OP regularly.  But the complainant has stated in his complaint that, he has already paid the entire amount to the OP.  With regard to the same, the complainant has produced the complainant.  But the OP is claiming the remaining interest amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from the complainant and also the OP has filed a AA case before the Hon’ble Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga in AA No.1/2019.  In this case, the complainant appeared through his Advocate and after reconciliation by both the parties, they have filed a joint memo agreeing to pay the amount of Rs.2,35,000/- as full and final settlement.  Accordingly, the complainant has paid Rs.1,10,000/- agreeing to pay the balance amount of Rs.1,25,000/- on or before 20.02.2019.  Such being the case, the question of deficiency of service on the part of OP does not arise.  The OP has not committed any deficiency of service.  The allegations made by the complainant in his complaint are not sustainable under law.    Viewed from any angle, we don’t find any deficiency in service on the part of OP.  The OP has followed the procedure as per law.    Accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as negative to the complainant.          

            10.     Point No.2:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein we pass the following:-

ORDER

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of CP Act 1986 is hereby dismissed.  No order as to costs.

 (This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 11/04/2019 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)         

 

                                     

MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:  Complainant by way of affidavit evidence.

Witnesses examined on behalf of OP:

DW-1:- Sri.Hanumanthappa by way of affidavit evidence.

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Form KMV 45
02	Ex-A-2:-	RC
03	Ex-A-3:-	Insurance policy
04	Ex-A-4:-	Statement of account
05	Ex-A-5:-	26 loan collection Cash receipts
06	Ex-A-6:-	Legal notice dated 25.09.2018

 

Documents marked on behalf of OP:

01	Ex-B-1:-	Order sheet in AA No.1/2019
02	Ex-B-2 & 3:-	Loan cum hypothecation agreement with schedule I to III
03	Ex.B-4:-	Statement of loan account
04	Ex-B-5:-	Loan cum hypothecation agreement
05	Ex-B-6:-	Statement of loan account
06	Ex.B-7:-	Power of attorney

 

 

 

MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

Rhr**