Karnataka

Bidar

CC/50/2015

Dattakumar S/o Shrinivas Chidri - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd. Bidar - Opp.Party(s)

Sri. Deshpande.P.M.Adv.

28 Apr 2017

ORDER

::BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

AT BIDAR::

 

 

                                                                                                                 C.C.No. 50/2015

 

                                                                                                  Date of filing : 09/07/2015

 

                                                                                             Date of disposal : 28/04/2017

 

 

P R E S E N T:-                    (1) Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata,

                                                                                         B.A., LL.B.,

                                                                                                       President.

    

                                              (2) Shri. Shankrappa (Halipurgi),

                                                                                 B.A.LL.B.,

                                                                                              Member.

                                

 

                                           

COMPLAINANT/S:          Dattakumar, s/o Shrinivas Chidri,

                                          Age : 38 years, Occ: Self Employment,

                                             R/o Tq.Humnabad, Dist. Bidar.

                                              

                                          (By Shri. P.M. Deshpande, Advocate)

 

 

                                                      VERSUS

 

OPPONENT/S   :-               1.  Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd.,

                                              Biradar complex, 2^nd Floor, Above Axis Bank,

                                                  Tripurant road, Basavakalyan, Dist.Bidar.

 

                                         2.  Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd.,

                                                Regd. office, 3^rd floor, Mookambika complex,

                                             Lady Desika road, Mylapore, Chennai.

                                         

                                    

 

                                           (By Shri. Baswaraj Udgir, Advocate )   

 

                                            

::   J U D G M E N T  : :

 

By Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, President.

 

                    This is a complaint filed by the above said complainant U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act., 1986, against the O.Ps alleging deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps.

 

 

2.         Brief facts of the case of the complaint are :

 

          The complainant is a native of Tq.Humnabad , Dist.Bidar.  Being unemployed, for his livelihood had purchased Lorry  (Ashok Leyland ECOMET 1611of 1997 model) from Mohd. Rafioddin, s/o                               Md. Moinuddin of Gulbarga and later the complainant has got the vehicle transferred in his name with all the formalities required in RTO office.  The complainant availed loan in a sum of Rs. 2,52493/- from O.P.no.1 under HPA and the complainant avers that, he had paid the total amount of Rs. 2,20,390/- and the O.P.no.1 has obtained Rs. 10,000/- extra from the complainant and for which no receipt was issued by the O.P.  Thereafter the complainant has availed further loan of                            Rs. 1,00,000/- from the O.P.no.1 for purchase of another vehicle but, the O.Ps have not given the vehicle and they have adjusted the amount in the ensued vehicle loan.  Therefore the O.Ps have received total                      Rs. 2,30,390/- and enjoying interest on it.  The O.Ps ignoring all the real facts and circumstances, sending notices for demanding Rs. 6,22,045/-from the complainant,  which is quite illegal, arbitrary and unlawful in eye of law.   The O.Ps are harassing the complainant and complainant is living under apprehension that the O.Ps. would seize the vehicle unlawfully by the musclemen.  Hence the complainant filed the complaint and prayed  for directing the O.Ps to restrain from the seizing the vehicle and not to auction/sale the vehicle and to quash the notice issued by the O.Ps and O.Ps be directed to issue N.O.C to the complainant and compensation.

 

3.            The O.Ps. on receipt of notice from the Court have put up appearance through counsel of their choice and have filed written versions wherein it is stated that, the entire contents of the complaint are all false and vexatious.   The same is not tenable in law on or facts.  The O.Ps. being financial institution  have no knowledge of the dealing  place between the Mohd. Rafioddin, s/o Md. Moinuddin of Gulbarga and  complainant.  It is true that the complainant has availed HPA loan from O.P.no.1 financial institution and it was  repayable in 36 EMIs, but it is false that the complainant has availed HPA loan on January-2011, and complainant has paid the EMI instalments.  It is true that complainant availed loan for Rs. 2,52,493, and agreement value is            Rs. 3,67,262/- but it is false that the EMI per month is fixed.  But it is as per schedule of the loan cum hypothecation agreement.  It is true that the O.P. financial institution has sent a legal notice dated 26/02/2015 demanding full and final settlement amount of Rs. 6,22,045/- along with further ODC @ 3% p.m. for delayed payments and to produce the machine in good running condition for inspection as per terms and conditions of loan cum hypothecation agreement between complainant and O.P. financial institution.  But it is false that the O.P. financial institution asking for loan agreement value Rs. 3,67,262 and the said notice cannot be challenged before this Hon’ble Forum.

 

4.         The complainant was paid total Rs. 182,230/- but the complainant not paid regular monthly instalments as per loan cum hypothecation agreement.  It is false the complainant has paid the amount of Rs. 2,20,390 under receipt besides this the O.P. has obtained Rs. 10,000/- extra from the complainant and for which no receipt is issued by the O.P.s and also the complainant has transacted for purchase of another vehicle from the O.Ps for Rs. 1,00,000/- but the O.Ps have not given the vehicle and they have adjusted this amount in  the ensued vehicle loan.  Therefore the O.Ps have received Rs. 2,30,390/- in total from the complainant is totally denied by the O.P. financial institutions and the complainant be put to strict proof and further the allegation of purchase of another vehicle and deposit of Rs.10,000/- is false baseless and fictitious and the same is denied by the O.Ps financial institution.    

 

5.                  The contention of the complainant is false that the O.Ps have got Rs. 2,30,390/- deposited in their custody and enjoying interest on it.  But it is true that the complainant paid the vehicle loan instalments of Rs. 1,82,230/- by way of instalments, but not regularly as per scheduled of loan cum hypothecation agreement and also Rs. 46,000/- collected by way of personal loan/ Bullet loan dt. 20/08/2011 by executing loan cum hypothecation agreement bearing number BVKLO 1082005 and the same is transferred to the instant loan, as such the amount paid shown by the complainant is wrong, even the personal loan/Bullet loan is due, and it is true that the O.P. financial institution was sent notice for demanding of Rs. 6,22,045/- for full and final settlement amount but not quite illegal, arbitrary and unlawful.  Further O.Ps avered that the there is no any unfair trade practise defective, deficient, inhumane treatment  with loanee/borrower, consumer and resulted monetary, mental  physical financial losses and harassment, in conveyance and other torture and trouble etc., caused by the O.Ps nor the company has initiated proceeding for repossession of the vehicle, the false bogus, fictious thing are narrated in this para.  There is no any loss or damages caused by the company to the complainant, for which the O.P. financial institutions is not liable for any compensation, cost, damages of Rs. 2,00,000/-.  The complainant has sought relief of prohibition for demanding alleged amount under notice as well as interim stay for the seizure of the vehicle, or not to auction/sale for vehicle and issue NOC is in the nature of civil proceedings.  Therefore, this Forum has no jurisdiction to grant such relief and complainant must approach to Civil Court for seeking such remedy.  Therefore, complaint filed by the complainant against O.Ps financial institutions is not at all maintainable.  The O.Ps. financial institution is a non-banking public limited financial institution.  It is engaged in the commercial vehicle finance business.  That on 30/11/2010 the complainant has borrowed a loan from the O.P. financial institution to purchase a vehicle  by jointly executing a loan cum hypothecation agreement in favour of O.P. financial institution under the guarantor ship of one Mr. Baburao Hanmanthappa of Humnabad.  In view of availment of loan from O.P. financial institution, the complainant is borrower of the O.P.  Therefore, the Borrower is not a consumer within the meaning of section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act. Hence complaint filed by; the complainant against O.P. financial institution is not at all maintainable before the Hon’ble Forum hence the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

 

 

6.         Considering the rival contentions of the parties, the following points arise for our consideration:-

 

1. Does the complainant prove that, there has been a deficiency of service and unethical trade practice in the part of the opponents?
2. What order?

 

7.              Our answers to the points stated above are as follows:-

 

1.   In the negative.
2. As per the final order, owing to the following:

 

                                                                                                   

 :: REASONS ::

 

8.  Point No.1.:-       In the instant case, the complainant had availed a loan to the tune of Rs. 2,52,493/- by executing hypothecation agreement with the O.P. vide Ex.P.2.  On 30/11/2010.  As per the schedule III attached to Ex.R.2, he was supposed to repay the borrowed amount along with interest @ 17.78980% in 36 monthly instalments at varied rate, the first commencing on 05/01/2011 and culminating on 05/12/2013 by which time the total amount of Rs. 3,67,262/- was payable by him.  Instead of adhering to the schedule of payment, the complainant deposited certain amounts vide Ex.P.4 to P.13, totally amounting Rs. 1,82,230/- at the end of the agreement period, causing a huge deficit of payment. 

 

9.              Next, executing another document vide Ex.P.3, pledging the same vehicle No. K.A.32/5147, he avails another loan of Rs. 46,000/- on 20/08/2011 and the same also remains unpaid.  No doubt then, the O.Ps have served upon him a legal notice dt. 26/02/2015 ( Ex.P.18) demanding repayment, alarmed by which, the complainant has approached this Forum on false and concocted grounds.  A chronic and persistent defaulter like him alleging falsely of deficiency of service and unethical trade practice cannot be permitted to get away with any relief and hence we answer the point no.1 in the negative.

 

10.  Point No.2:-  Resultantly, we proceed to pass the following:-

 

:: ORDER ::

   

1.  The complaint is dismissed.
2.  There would be no order as to costs or otherwise.

 

 

 

( Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 28^th  day of  April-2017 )

 

 

 

 

   Sri. Shankrappa H.                                             Sri. Jagannath Prasad                                  

Member.                                                                President.                                                                                            

 

 

 

Documents produced by the complainant

1. Ex.P.1  Copy of R.C. Book.
2. Ex.P.2- Challan, dt. 15/11/2010.
3. Ex.P3- Endorsement of Transfer of permet   
4. Ex.P.4  to 13- Money receipts.
5. Ex.P.14 – Goods carrier permit.
6. Ex.P.15- Insurance Certificate, dt. 05/11/2012.
7. Ex.P.16- Insurance Policy, dt. 05/11/2011.
8. Ex.P.17-Copy of Challan, date illegible.
9. Ex.P.18- Legal notice of O.Ps, dt. 26/02/2015.

 

 Documents produced by the Opponent/s

 

1. Ex.R.1 –Power of Attorney instrument ( copy )
2. Ex.R.2- Copy of loan agreement and schedules appended.
3. Ex.R.3-Copy of second loan agreement with schedules.  
4. Ex.R.4- Final data sheet of loan repayments (copy )
5. Ex.R.5- Summary of loans in respect of vehicle no. KA-32-5147.

 

 

 

Sri. Shankrappa H.                                               Sri. Jagannath Prasad                                  

       Member.                                                                      President.

mv.