BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSALFORUM :: KADAPA DISTRICT
PRESENT SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., PRESIDENT FAC
SRI M.V.R. SHARMA, MEMBER.
Friday, 07th March 2014
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 34/ 2013
Gopi Reddy Sanjeeva Reddy, S/o Chandrasekhara Reddy,
aged about 35 years, Bus Owner, D.No. 26/345,
Vasanthapet Street, Proddatur Town, Y.s.R District. ….. Complainant.
Vs.
Sriram City Union Finance Ltd., Rep. by its
Branch Manager, Gandhi road, Proddatur town,
Y.S.R. District. ….. Respondent.
This complaint coming on this day for final hearing on 4-3-2014 in the presence of Sri C.C. Gurivi Reddy, Advocate complainant and Sri P. Jagadeswara Reddy, Advocate for respondents and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per Smt. K. Sireesha, President FAC),
1. Complaint filed under section 12 of the C.P. Act 1986.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:- The complainant is having a bus bearing No. TN 23 N : 0561 which was plying between Proddatur – Gudipadu for the last 15 years. The complainant is eaking out through running of the bus. As the complainant is in need of money the complainant had hypothecated his bus with the respondents company and had taken a loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- on 15-11-2007 under agreement No. NRSLPR 10700163. The amount has to repay in 36 monthly installments. Each installment is Rs. 6,542/- along with interest on Rs. 1,50,000/-. The complainant had paid Rs. 2,35,668/- the total instalment amount in 36 months. The not respondent issued no objection certificate and no due certificate. The complainant approached the respondent and asked no due certificate and no objection certificate and the respondent had no proper reply. After that the complainant had issued legal notice through his advocate on 9-10-2012 and the respondent had received. But there is no reply from the respondent and had not issued no objection and no due certificate. Hence, this complaint. The respondent company is situated at Proddatur and the Hon’ble forum is having jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. As they had not issued to the complainant no objection and no due certificate and not in a position to resale his bus to others or hire his bus to others. So the complainant got much financial loss and mental agony. Therefore, the complainant prayed this Hon’ble forum to direct the respondent to pay Rs. 50,000/- for having loss and mental agony and to pay Rs. 2,000/- towards advocate fee for legal notice to the respondent and the Hon’ble forum may direct the respondent to issue no due certificate and no objection certificate to the complainant as the complainant had paid total installments to the respondent. The postal order of Rs. 100/- is paid.
3. Counter field by the respondent that the petition filed by the petitioner is unjust and not maintainable either in law of facts. The petitioner is put to strict proof of all the allegations which are not expressly admitted by respondent.
4. The petitioner had hypothecated bus bearing No. TN 23 N : 561 on 15-11-2007 for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-. As per the hypothecation agreement the petitioner has to clear the loan amount with interest in 36 monthly installments and also agreed to pay the said amount of Rs. 6,542/- as monthly installment. The petitioner is a defaulter in paying the regular installments as per the terms and conditions stipulated in the agreement.
5. As per terms and conditions of the loan agreement under article I in para – 1.8 delayed payment charges in the agreement. In the event of any delay or default in the payment of any installments on the due dates or any other dues under the agreement. The borrowers and the guarantors shall pay to the lender delayed payment charges of the rate as set out in the said schedule – 1, such delayed payment charges shall be computed from the respective due dates for the payment up to date of realization. The petitioner is a defaulter, the petitioner has to pay cheque bounce charges amount and penal interest. The petitioner has to complete the last date of the installment i.e. 15-9-2010, but the petitioner has completed on 25-9-2012. As per the respondents account ledger extract the petitioner has to pay Rs. 35,277/- being the due balance. This respondent is herewith enclosing the said ledger extract. The petitioner should pay within the stipulated time as per agreement, the petitioner have taken two years extra time for payment of loan agreement. So that it automatically will be added additional charges. So that question of legal notice sending to the respondent’s company does not arise.
6. The petitioner has no right to ask for NOC as he is due balance amount in the respondent company. After completion of payment of balance amount, automatically will be given NOC and have right to ask NOC to the respondent. The petitioner is a regular defaulter that is why the respondent company suffered a lot. So that, question of mental agony does not arise to the petitioner. Seeing from any angle the petitioner is not entitled to claim any damage or ask NOC for the respondent’s company. Therefore, prayed that the Hon’ble forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.
7. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
- Whether the complainant is eligible for compensation as prayed by the complainant?
- Whether there is negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the Respondent?
- To what relief?
8. On behalf of the complainant Ex. A1 to A3 were marked and on behalf of the respondent Ex. B1 & B2 were marked.
9. Point Nos. 1 & 2. The complainant had availed a loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- on 15-11-2007 from respondent company by hypothecating his bus bearing No. TN 23 N : 561 under loan agreement No. NRSLPR 10700163. The EMI is fixed @ Rs. 6,542/-. The complainant has to pay installments in 36 months including interest on the principal amount. Ex. A1 clearly shows that the complainant paid the installment amount. After that the respondent did not issued no due certificate and no objection certificate to the complainant. The complainant had issued legal notice under Ex. A2 and Ex. A3 to the respondent. The respondent did not issued no due certificate and no objection certificate to the complainant. As per hire ledger detailed as on 31-10-2013, the complainant had paid 36 installments by 15-9-2010. As per statement filed by the respondent, it is bounded duty of the respondent to issue no objection certificate and no due certificate to the complainant. But here the version of the respondent is that the complainant had paid installments irregularly and he had not paid specific EMI amount and he had delayed the payments more than the duration. As per the version of the respondent if the complainant had not paid the EMI amount every month it is the bounded duty of the respondent to issue notice to the complainant i.e. following rules and regulations of the agreement. But the respondent did not do so. Ex. B2 is the empty original loan cum hypothecation agreement filed by the respondent and it is not related to this case and did not support the case of the respondent. It clearly shows the deficiency of service on the part of the respondent. So the complainant is eligible for compensation as prayed by him and there is clear deficiency of service on the part of the respondent.
10. Point No. 3 In the result, the complaint is allowed, directing the respondent to issue no due certificate to the complainant, issue no objection certificate to the complainant, the complainant is not liable to pay Rs. 35,277/- to the respondent i.e. ledger balance. The respondent is directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) towards mental agony and Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards cost of the complaint. The respondent is directed to issue all the necessary documents which are kept with them, to the complainant. The respondent is directed to comply the order within 45 days of date of receipt of orders.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 7th March 014
MEMBER PRESIDENT FAC
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant NIL For Respondents : NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant : -
Ex. A1 P/c of receipts issued by Shriram City Union Finance Ltd., Proddatur.
Ex. A2 P/c of legal notice dt. 9-10-2013 issued by the complainant to
respondent.
Ex. A3 P/c of acknowledgement.
Exhibits marked for Respondents: -
Ex. B1 Original statement of the ledger extract issued by the Shriram City
Union Ltd., Proddatur.
Ex. B2 Empty original loan cum Hypothecation agreement.
MEMBER PRESIDENT FAC
Copy to :-
- Sri C.C. Gurivi Reddy, Advocate for complainant.
- Sri P. Jagadeswara Reddy, Advocate for respondent.
B.V.P. - - -
