Date of filing:29.10.2013

                                                                                                        Date of Disposal:3.1.2014

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II::

VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

        Present: SRI A. M. L. NARASIMHA RAO, B.SC., B. L., PRESIDENT

                                   SMT N. TRIPURA SUNDARI, B. COM., B. L.,   MEMBER

       FRIDAY, THE 3^rd DAY OF JANUARY, 2014.

C.C.No.164 OF 2013.

Between :

Kanaparthy Rama Devi, W/o Ramesh Kumar, Hindu, 36 years, R/o Door No.23-93, NSC Bose Nagar, Vijayawada, Krishna District.    

    ….. Complainant.

And

M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited, Rep., by its Authorized Signatory, Office at Door No.54-15-4A, 3^rd Floor, Zoom Complex, Near Vinayak Theatre, Vijayawada – 520 008.

…..Opposite Party.

This complaint is coming before us for final hearing on 31.12.2013 in the presence of Sri B.Subba Rao, Advocate for complainant and opposite party remained absent and upon perusing the material available on record, this Forum delivers the following:

O  R  D  E  R

(Delivered by Hon’ble Member Smt N. Tripura Sundari)

            This Complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

1. The averments of the complaint are in brief:

The complainant availed financial assistance of Rs.2,94,322/- with financial charges of Rs.1,33,619/- from the 1^st opposite party for purchase of Tata Ace Magic HT.8 seater vehicle in the month of November, 2010.The complainant has to pay the said amount in 48 monthly instalments at Rs.9,939/- for 1^st instalment, last for Rs.8,878/- for remaining instalments at the rate of Rs.8,894/- commencing from December, 2010 to November, 2014.The complainant in all paid Rs.1,70,729/- upto December 2012 regularly.But to the shock and surprise of the complainant the opposite party seized the vehicle of the complainant on 19.1.2013 without any prior intimation or notice.The complainant immediately approached the opposite party and the opposite party requested the complainant to come after one week.Believing the same the complainant waited upto 30.1.2013 and approached the opposite party on several times and expressed her willingness to pay the arrears if any, but the opposite party postponing the same.While so on 8.7.2013 the opposite party got issued a notice to the complainant stating that her vehicle was sold for very meager amount of Rs.1,02,000/-.The opposite party had not issued any notice prior to the sale of the vehicle demanding the complainant to pay the arrear amounts, if any.Thus the opposite party committed deficiency in service without any intimation, seized the vehicle and sold away the same to gain wrongfully.Hence the complainant is constrained to file this complaint against the opposite party praying the Forum to direct the opposite party to deliver the said Tata Magic vehicle in good condition; to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for deficiency in service and to pay costs.

2.         The notice was served to opposite party but called absent. No version affidavit and documents were filed on behalf of the opposite party.

3.         The complainant gave her affidavit and got marked Exs.A.1 to Ex.A.4.

4.         Heard and perused.

5.         Now the points that arise for consideration in this complaint are:

            1.Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party in not

              giving any notice prior to seizing and selling of the vehicle of the complainant?

            2. If so is the complainant entitled for any relief?

            3. To what relief the complainant is entitled?

POINTS 1 AND 2:-

6.         On pursuing the material in hand we, the Forum came to understand that the complainant purchased the Tata Ace Magic HT 8 seater vehicle for her livelihood by availing financial assistance from the opposite party for Rs.2,94,322/- with financial charges of Rs.1,33,619/-, in the month of November, 2010.  She has to pay the said amount in 48 monthly instalments at the rate of Rs.8,894/- and the 1^st instalment at Rs.9,939/- and last for Rs.8,878/- commencing from December, 2010 to November 2014.  As per Ex.A.2 registered legal notice dated 8.7.2013 issued by opposite party to the complainant that the complainant had paid only a sum of Rs.1,70,729/- till date towards the instalments and neglected to pay the arrears in spite of several reminders.  The opposite party stated in its notice that as there is no other option to the company to realize the amount due under the said agreement, the opposite party repossessed the vehicle as per terms of the agreement and sold it for an amount of Rs.1,02,000/- and the complainant is still due of Rs.2,28,051/- as on 5.3.2013 and she has to pay that amount with interest at 36% per annum within 7 days from the date of receipt of the notice.  The complainant received said notice and got issued reply notice Ex.A.1 dated 10.8.2013 through her advocate stating that the allegation made by opposite party in Ex.A.2 are false and even though she is paying the instalments regularly, on 19.1.2013 the staff of opposite party high handedly taken away the vehicle without any prior intimation.  The original registration certificate Ex.A.3 and the permit of the vehicle are with her.  The complainant mentioned in her reply notice that she approached the opposite party for number of times and requested the opposite party to intimate the outstanding amount due to pay and requested to release the vehicle, but the opposite party did not respond to the same.  The opposite party with a malafide intention without prior intimation sold away the vehicle for low cost.  If the vehicle is sold in present market she would get amount more than the price got by the opposite party.  The complainant further stated that she has no liability to pay any amount to opposite party. 

7.         On hearing the arguments of the complainant we calculated the amounts.  The complainant has to pay from January, 2011 upto January, 2013 for twenty five months Rs.8,894 x 25 = Rs.2,22,350/- + 1^st instalment Rs.9,939/-  = Rs.2,32,289/-.  The complainant paid Rs.1,70,729/-.  She has to pay the arrears as Rs.2,32,289/- - Rs.1,70,729/- = Rs.61,569/-.  She has to pay further instalments for 21 months @ Rs.8,894/- x 21 = Rs.1,86,774/-  + last instalment Rs.8,878/-  = Rs.1,95,652/- .  But she need not pay the interest on future instalments.  So the total interest for future instalments have to be deducted from the future instalments.  The O.P. has no right to calculate the interest on future instalments.  The future interest calculated as per financial charges Rs.1,33,619/- as Rs.61,242/- and it should be deducted from future E.M.Is Rs.1,95,652/- - Rs.61,242/- = Rs.1,34,410/- (total amount of future E.M.Is) Rs.1,34,410/- + arrears Rs.61,569/- = Rs.1,95,979/-.  The vehicle was sold by the opposite party for Rs.1,02,000/-and it has to be deducted from the amount of Rs.1,95,979/- - Rs.1,02,000/- = Rs.93,979/-.  The future liability of the complainant is Rs.93,979/-.  The opposite party seized the vehicle and sold it away without any prior intimation to the complainant.  The opposite party did not follow the procedure for seizing and selling.  The opposite party stated in its legal notice that the complainant is still due of Rs.2,28,051/- including delayed payment charges and other incidental expenses as on 5.3.2013.  The opposite party failed to explain how the due amount is arrived at.  Hence we hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party towards the complainant.  So the opposite party can receive only the amount Rs.93,979/- from the complainant with reasonable interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 19.1.2013 to till realization.

POINT No.3:-

8.         In the result, the complaint is allowed in part and the opposite party is directed to receive the sum of Rs.93,979/- (Ninety three thousand nine hundred and seventy nine only) from the complainant with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 19.1.2013 till realization and close the accounts of the complainant for full and final satisfaction of the loan and return the documents if any relating to this loan to the complainant.  In the circumstances of the case no costs are awarded.  

Typewritten by Stenographer K.Sivaram Prasad, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 3^rd day of January, 2014.

PRESIDENT                                                                                                                                          MEMBER

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For the complainant:                                                         For the opposite party:-

P.W.1 Kanaparthy Rama Devi                                                          None

            Complainant (by affidavit)

DOCUMENTS MARKED

On behalf of the Complainant:

Ex.A.1            10.08.2013    Office copy of legal notice.

Ex.A.2            08.07.2013    Office copy of legal notice issued by complainant to the

Guarantor Habeeb-Ur-Rahaman Abdul, Vijayawada.  

Ex.A.3                .    .              Letter from the counsel for complainant to the Post Master,

Civil Courts Post Office, Vijayawada.

Ex.A.4            25.11.2010    Certificate of registration.

For the opposite party:-

            None.                                                

                                                                                                                        PRESIDENT