Complaint filed on: 09.06.2014
Complaint Disposed on:30.06.2017
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT CHICKMAGALUR.
COMPLAINT NO.49/2014
DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF JUNE 2017
:PRESENT:
HON’BLE SRI RAVISHANKAR, B.A.L, LL.B., - PRESIDENT
HON’BLE SMT B.U.GEETHA, M. COM., LL.B., -MEMBER
HON’BLE SMT H. MANJULA, B.A.L., LL.B., - MEMBER
COMPLAINANT:
N.R.Durgesh S/o Ramanna,
Aged about 35 years,
Agriculturist,
R/o Nagarahally Village,
Ambale hobli,
Chickmagalore taluk & Dist.
(By Sri/Smt. H.P.Vishwanatha, Advocate)
V/s
OPPONENT:
1. Shriram Transport Finance
Company Limited,
Mookambika Complex,
3rd floor, No.4, Lady desika road,
Mylapore, Chennai-600004.
2. Shriram Transport Finance
Company Limited,
1st floor, Gandarva building,
B.M. Road, Sakleshpur,
Hassan Dist.
3. Shriram Transport Finance
Company Limited,
Admin Office 101-105,
1st floor, B wing, Shiv Chambers,
Sector 11, CBD Belapur,
Navi Mumbai-400614.
4. Shriram Transport Finance
Company Limited,
I.G. Road, Chikmagalur.
(OP No.1 to 4 By Sri/Smt. Hareesh Singatagere, Advocate)
By Hon’ble President Sri. Ravishankar,
:O R D E R:
The complainant filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against OP Nos.1 to 4 alleging a deficiency in service in not issuing the clearance certificate along with original documents which are deposited at the time of loan. Hence, prays for direction against Op Nos.1 to 4 to issue the clearance certificate along with return of all original documents of the vehicle and compensation of Rs.50,000/- for deficiency in service.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is that:
The complainant had availed a loan of Rs.2,90,000/- from Ops for the purpose of purchasing the vehicle and agreed to repay the loan amount in equal monthly installment of Rs.11,000/- per month up to 3 years. After obtaining the loan the complainant had repaid sum of Rs.2,95,000/- till 12.03.2014. The details are given below:
- 19/01/2014 Rs.70,000/-
- 06/02/2014 Rs.80,000/-
- 22/02/2014 Rs.90,000/-
- 12/03/2014 Rs.55,000/-
For the above said payments the Ops have issued receipts. After the said repayment of the entire loan the complainant requested Op Nos.1 to 4 to issue clearance certificate along with return of original documents which were kept in custody of Ops while obtaining the loan. The complainant also demanded for return of the 4 blank cheques duly signed by complainant which are deposited as security at the time of obtaining the loan. But Ops have neither issued the clearance certificate nor return the original documents to the complainant. Inspite of repeated requests also Ops failed to issue the clearance certificate to the complainant.
Finally, complainant issued a legal notice dated 06.05.2014 and called upon them to issue clearance certificate along with return of all original documents obtained from him at the time of loan. The notice issued was duly served on Op No.1 and 3, but even after receipt of the legal notice they have not complied the demand made in the notice. In turn the Op Nos.2 has sent some persons to seize the vehicle forcibly without due process of law on 12.05.2014, the said persons tried to seize the vehicle forcibly, but the said illegal act of the said persons were prevented by the assistance of local villagers and further the said persons threatened and behaved in a rude manner against complainant. Due to the said illegal act of the Ops the complainant suffered inconvenience and financial loss. Inspite of repayment of the entire loan amount Ops were tried to seize the vehicle without any valid reasons and denied to issue clearance certificate and return all the original documents. Hence, complainant alleges deficiency in service and prays for direction against Op Nos.1 to 4 to issue clearance certificate along with return of the original documents and compensation for deficiency in service as prayed above.
3. After service of notice Op Nos.1 to 4 appeared through their counsel and filed common version and contended that it is true that complainant availed a loan from these Ops for purchase of the tractor engine from Op No.2 on 01.01.2014 and the loan amount of Rs.2,91,897/-.
But it is false that complainant had repaid sum of Rs.2,95,000/- till 12.03.2014 and cleared entire loan. Further it is false that they have issued a receipt towards payment of the said amount and also false that they have sent some persons to seize the vehicle of the complainant illegally.
The Ops further contended that, at the time of availing a loan towards purchase of the tractor the complainant and one guarantor by name Chandregowda executed loan/hypothecation agreement dated 01.01.2014 and as per the loan agreement the complainant has to pay the loan amount with interest monthly installment of Rs.12,905/- and subsequent 34 monthly installment of Rs.11,998/-. The complainant after availing the loan had paid Rs.5,000/- on 06.02.2014 and another Rs.5,000/- on 22.05.2014. There afterwards he had not paid any amount to this Op company towards loan amount. The complainant is in due to the tune of Rs.3,27,975/- as on 12.06.2014 and complainant had not at all paid Rs.2,90,000/- as stated in the complaint.
The complainant with an intention to cheat these Ops and to make wrongful gain entered into loan/hypothecation agreement with these Ops and availed the loan, there afterwards complainant forged and created 4 receipts showing that he had repaid the loan of Rs.2,95,000/- to this Op company in order to cheat the Ops. As per the article 12 of the loan agreement the complainant has to issue one month prior notice for pre-mature clearance of the loan to these Ops, whereas complainant had not complied the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. In fact complainant is a cronic defaulter of the loan and 2nd Op intimated the complainant that they are going to take legal action against him. Even after receipt of the legal notice of the complainant, they initiated to clear the loan but complainant not cared. In this regard, these Ops had initiated a criminal case (punishable U/s.420, 468 of IPC) after giving police complaint against complainant at Sakleshpur police station and now the case is pending before Judicial Magistrate. Hence, there is no any deficiency in service on the part of these Ops and complainant filed this false complaint by suppressing the material facts in order to avoid repayment of the loan. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Complainant filed affidavit and marked documents as Ex.P.1 to P.9 and Op Nos.1 to 4 also filed affidavit and marked documents as Ex.R.1 to R.13.
5. Heard the arguments.
6. In the proceedings, the following points do arise for our consideration and decision:
- Whether there is a deficiency in service on the part of OPs.
- Whether complainant entitled for any relief & what Order?
7. Our findings on the above points are as follows:-
- Point No.1: Negative.
- Point No.2: As per Order below.
: R E A S O N S :
POINT NOs. 1 & 2:
8. On going through the pleadings, affidavits and documents produced by both complainant and Ops, there is no dispute that complainant had availed loan of Rs.2,91,897/- from Ops in order to purchase a tractor engine and has executed loan/hypothecation agreement duly signed by complainant and guarantor one Chandregowda. But the complainant alleges that he had cleared the entire loan before completion of the term and demanded for issuance of clearance certificate and to return of the original documents. For which Ops instead of issuing clearance certificate have threatened to seize the vehicle and demanded for repayment of the loan. Hence, complainant prays for issue clearance certificate and also return of the original documents along with compensation for alleged deficiency in service.
9. The complainant filed affidavit and marked certified copy of Registration as Ex.P.1, Loan Receipt dated:19.01.2014 marked as Ex.P.2, Loan Receipt dated:06.02.2014 marked as Ex.P.3, Loan Receipt dated:22.02.2014 marked as Ex.P.4 and another Loan Receipt dated:12.03.2014 marked as Ex.P.5 and also produced legal notice marked as Ex.P.9 in support of his allegation.
10. On contrary Ops also produced Loan/Hypothecation Agreement marked as Ex.R.1, Statement of Loan Account marked as Ex.R.2, Loan Receipt dated:06.02.2014 marked as Ex.R.3, Another Loan Receipt dated:22.02.2014 marked as Ex.R.4, Police endorsement to show they have given the police complaint against complainant before Town Police Station, Chikmagalur marked as Ex.R.5, Police Complaint marked as Ex.R.6, RTC marked as Ex.R.7, Charge-sheet filed by Rural Police Station, Chikmagalur against complainant marked as Ex.R.8, FIR marked as Ex.R.9, Extract of the Registration certificate stands in the name of complainant marked as Ex.R.10 (without endorsement from RTO), Certified copy of the R.C. stands in the name of complainant marked as Ex.R.11(with endorsement dated:06.06.2014 from RTO), Copy of the Criminal Revision Petition marked as Ex.R.12 in support of their contention.
11. On going through the documents produced by both complainant and Ops we noticed that complainant in his affidavit has sworn that he had repaid the loan amount as per Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.5, we noticed that the complainant had alleged that he had repaid the loan amount of Rs.70,000/- on 19.01.2014, Rs.80,000/- on 06.02.2014, Rs.90,000/- on 22.02.2014 and another Rs.55,000/- on 12.03.2014. We wonder the complainant had paid the entire loan amount within 3 months after obtaining the loan. On parallel the learned advocate of Ops have vehemently argued that the said receipts are fabricated by complainant in order to cheat them and at the same time Ops have produced original receipts which are issued to the complainant marked as Ex.R.3 dated 06.02.2014 towards an amount of Rs.5,000/- and another receipt dated 22.02.2014 marked as Ex.R.4 and another Rs.5,000/- payment, in these receipts we observed there is a seal of the Op company, whereas the receipts produced by complainant bears no seal. Hence, it is clear that complainant not paid the entire loan amount to Op. Further, the Ops have registered a criminal case against complainant for fraud and cheating for fabricating bills, in support of that Ops produced police complaint marked as Ex.R.6 and charge-sheet marked as Ex.R.8 and FIR marked as Ex.R.9. Further, the learned advocate for Ops vehemently argued that the complainant further had fabricated the certificate of Registration by entering the endorsement stating that the hypothecation was cancelled as per Ex.P.1and Ex.P.11. Whereas the certified copy of the R.C.(Ex.P.10) obtained by Ops indicates no such endorsement. Hence, we noticed that before filing the complaint the complainant had obtained a copy of the R.C. with an endorsement of cancellation of hypothecation dated 06.06.2014. We are of the opinion that there is a chances of fabricating the documents from complainant. For which Ops have initiated the criminal proceedings against the complainant. Hence, at the conclusion we are of the opinion that the complainant had not repaid the loan installments as per Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.5 and we found that there is a criminal case against complainant with respect to the offence punishable U/s 420, 468 of Indian Penal Code. Therefore, we found that the complainant is a cronic defaulter of the loan amount payable to the Ops and complainant had falsely lodged a deficiency in service on the part of Op Nos.1 to 4 without clearance of the loan amount. The complainant has filed this false complaint. Hence, the complainant is liable to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- to the Welfare fund of the Consumer Association. As such the complaint is liable to be dismissed and for the above said reasons, we answer the above point no.1 and 2 in the Negative and proceed to pass the following:-
: O R D E R :
- The complaint filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
- The complainant is directed to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- to the Welfare Association of the Consumer Association.
- Send free copies of this order to both the parties.
(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed typed by her, transcript corrected by me and then pronounced in Open Court on this the 30th day of June 2017).
(B.U.GEETHA) (H. MANJULA) (RAVISHANKAR)
Member Member President
ANNEXURES
Documents produced on behalf of the complainant/S:
Ex.P.1 - Copy of R.C..
Ex.P.2 - Loan Receipt dtd:19.01.2014.
Ex.P.3 - Loan Receipt dtd:06.02.2014.
Ex.P.4 - Loan Receipt dtd:22.02.2014.
Ex.P.5 - Loan Receipt dtd:12.03.2014.
Ex.P.6 - Office copy of legal notice.
Ex.P.7 & 8 - 2 Postal Ack. due.
Ex.P.9 - Reply to legal notice.
Documents produced on behalf of the OP/S:
Ex.R.1 - Loan Agreement.
Ex.R.2 - Statement of Loan Account.
Ex.R.3 & 4 - 2 receipts towards payment of loan.
Ex.R.5 - Endorsement.
Ex.R.6 - Police Complaint.
Ex.R.7 - 13 RTC.
Ex.R.8 - Certified copy of charge-sheet.
Ex.R.9 - FIR.
Ex.R.10 - Certified copy of B extract.
Ex.R.11 - Certified copy of Certificate of Registration.
Ex.R.12 - Certified copy of Order.
Ex.R.13 - Power of Attorney.
Dated:30.06.2017 President
District Consumer Forum,
Chikmagalur.
RMA
