This C.C. came before us for final hearing on 10-6-2009 in the presence of Smt.P.Padmavathi, Advocate for Complainants, and of Sri.K.Raja Sekhara Reddy, Advocate for opposite party No.1 and of Sri.D.Delaram, Advocate for opposite party No.2; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments, and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-
O R D E R
(Per Sri.K.V.Kaladhar, Member)
1. This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the following averments;
The complainant No.1 had taken SPL + Bike bearing No.T/R AP 16 AD 6528 from the opposite party No.1 on finance by paying Rs.20,000/- in the month of January, 2005 and as per the terms of the said finance, the complainant has to pay the balance installments @ Rs.1,870/- and the opposite party No.1 had obtained the signatures of the complainant on blank pronotes, white papers and also on the blank documents with regard to sale of vehicle etc.
The complainant No.1 paid Rs.1,870/- each on 5-2-2005, 5-3-2005, 5-4-2005 and 5-5-2005 by way of four installments vide receipt Nos.1842, 1866, 2002 and 2021 respectively. Subsequently, the opposite party No.1 did not come forward for the fifth installments on 5-6-2006. While the matter stood thus on 15-6-2005 the opposite party No.2 sent a letter demanding the complainant to pay the installments, otherwise they would seize the vehicle. Though the complainant was ready for payment of installments to the opposite party No.1, but the opposite party No.1 did not send his men for installment. Again on 4-10-2005, the opposite party No.2 sent another letter demanding to pay the due installments. Immediately, the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 and asked about the issuing of letters from the opposite party No.2, then the opposite party No.1 replied that the vehicle was not financed by him and the same was financed by the opposite party No.2 and also stated that he handed over the blank pronotes, white papers, agreements and other documents relating to the vehicle handed over to the opposite party No.2. Subsequently on 10-10-2005 the opposite party No.2 sent one Eeda Srinivasa Rao S/o.Gopala Rao for payment of due of 6 installments for Rs.11,220/- (Rs.1,870 x 6) and the said Eeda Srinivasa Rao stated that the opposite party No.2 sent two letters but there is no reply from the complainant and demanded to pay the installments to the said Eeda Srinivasa Rao and asked for the receipts by the complainant No.1. Then the said Eeda Srinivasa Rao had passed a receipt acknowledging the amount received by him. Thus, the complainant had paid the entire due installments to the opposite parties.
That on 5-11-2005 the vehicle of the complainant was taken by his friend, Gandham Nageshwar Rao for his necessities and after completion of his work, at evening hours at about 5.30 PM while he started from his house to hand over the vehicle to the complainant, meanwhile about 10 persons of opposite party No.2 stopped the vehicle and beat him and had taken away the said vehicle. Immediately the complainant had lodged a report before the P.S.Palvoncha Town, who endorsed the same on the complaint and still the same is pending for enquiry. Further the complainant also sent a letter informing the said fact to the opposite parties vide D.T.D.C. courier No.H/65918844 dt.7-11-2005 requesting the opposite parties to return his vehicle along with the blank pronotes, signed white papers and registration papers of the vehicle etc., and also mentioned about the payment made to said Eda Srinivasa Rao, but there is no response from the opposite parties. Vexed with the attitude of the opposite parties, finally on 14-11-2005 the complainant sent a letter to them, requesting either to return the vehicle or to pay the amounts paid by him and also enclosed the copy of receipts showing the payment of installments by him. That the Opposite party No.1 issued a reply on 22-1-2005 by admitting the fact of taking of vehicle of the complainant and alleged that since the complainant failed to pay the installments, they had taken the vehicle and they will return the vehicle immediately after showing the bills. That after receipt of the said reply, the complainant approached the opposite party No.2 and had showed all the bills but the opposite party No.2 paid deaf ear. Hence, this complaint to direct the opposite parties either to return the vehicle bearing No.AP-16-AD-6528 T/R or to pay the amount of Rs.38,700/- along with interest accrued thereon @ 24% P.A. from 10-10-2005 to till the date of payment to him, to award damages and compensation of Rs.50,000/- each to him, and to award costs.
2. On receipt of notice, Opposite party No.1 appeared through its counsel, but did not file counter. Opposite party No.2 appeared through its counsel and filed counter, denying all the averments made in the complaint and stated that the deceased, complainant No.1 had taken SPL Motor bike bearing No.T/R AP 16 AD 6528 from the opposite party No.1 in the month of January, 2005 and that the complainant has to pay the balance sale consideration at the rate of Rs.1,870/- P.M. and that opposite party No.1 had obtained the signatures of the complainant No.1 on blank pronotes, white papers and also on blank documents with regard to sale of said motor cycle etc allegations are not true and untenable. The deceased, complainant No.1 falsely alleging that he purchased the above said motor cycle under hire purchase agreement from the opposite party No.1. In fact the opposite party No.1 is not at all concerned with the sale of the said motor cycle in favour of the deceased, complainant No.1.
The opposite party No.2 further stated that the opposite party No.1 is only agent working on behalf of them for sale of the motor cycles. Whenever a customer approached the opposite party No.1 for purchasing any Hero Honda motor cycle he used to take order for supply of category or kind of vehicle required by the customer and the opposite party No.1 used to inform the same to the opposite party No.2. On approval the opposite party No.1 used to obtain the required documents executed by the customer in favour of the opposite party No.2. On such documentation, the opposite party No.2 used to supply the required vehicle from his Mylavaram show room to the opposite party No.1 for delivery of the same to the said customer. In the instant case also, the deceased, complainant approached the opposite party No.1 and requested him to supply Hero Honda SPL Motor cycle from the said show room of the opposite party No.2. The customer having requested to purchase the said motor cycle on hire purchase basis, agreed to the terms and conditions of the opposite party No.2 and consequently the deceased, complainant No.1 executed and signed the necessary hire purchase documents in favour of the opposite party No.2. The said documents signed by the deceased, complainant No.1 were taken by the opposite party No.1 handed over to the opposite party No.2. It is asserted at this stage that the opposite party No.1 did not obtain any documents from the deceased complainant No.1 in the name of the opposite party No.1 In fact the opposite party No.1 conducted the entire sale/hire purchase transaction only as an agent for and on behalf of the opposite party No.2. As per the terms and conditions of the said hire purchase agreement entered in between the deceased, complainant No.1 and the opposite party No.2, the deceased complainant received total finance of Rs.33,000/- from the opposite party No.2 for purchase of said vehicle and the deceased complainant No.1 is liable to repay the same in installments together with interest at the rate of 18% P.A. As such towards repayment of said finance amount, the deceased complainant No.1 was allowed to repay the same in 24 installments at the rate of Rs.1,870/- per month. Thus the entire transaction took place fairly in between the deceased, complainant No.1 and the opposite party No.2. Other than that the opposite party No.1 is not directly involved in the said transaction and the deceased, complainant No.1 did not obtain any vehicle finance from the opposite party No.1 and further deceased, complainant No.1 did not execute and documents in favour of the opposite party No.1. All the allegations to the contra made in the complaint are fabricated and concocted for the purpose of getting wrongful gain by means of blackmailing the opposite parties.
The deceased, complainant No.1 executed the necessary documents as stated above in favour of the second opposite party on 5-1-2005 and on the same day the Hero Honda SPL Motor Cycle noted above was delivered to the deceased/complainant No.1 made down payment of rs.12,973/- and took delivery of the said vehicle at Tiruvuru. Subsequently the deceased, complainant No.1 paid four installments at the rate of Rs.1,870/- towards said hire purchase finance and the said amounts were received by the opposite party No.2 through the opposite party No.1.
Thereafter, the deceased/complainant No.1 deliberately failed to pay the remaining installments inspite of several demands being made by the opposite party No.2 and his personnel. As such the opposite party No.2 issued a notice by registered post to the deceased, complainant No.1 demanding him to clear the arrears of installments and also informing that in the event of his failure to pay the arrears of installments, the said motor cycle purchased by him would be seized in accordance with the authority vested with the opposite party No.2 as per the terms and conditions of the hire purchase agreement. The deceased, complainant received said notice and kept quite without making any payment. Later, at the instance of the opposite party No.2, Eda Srinivasa Rao, who is an employee of the opposite party No.2 contacted the deceased, complainant No.1 at Palvoncha and demanded him to pay the arrears of installments. But the deceased complainant threatened said Eda Srinivasa Rao with dire consequences and by show of force made him to sign on empty white paper. In this regard, said Eda Srinivasa Rao also lodged a complaint in Palvoncha police station on 7-1-2005 under petition No.527. Later on 5-11-2005 the opposite party No.2 seized the said motor cycle from the custody of the deceased, complainant No.1 at Palvoncha. The opposite party No.2 also issued a seizure letter dt.5-11-2005 in person to the deceased, complainant No.1 at the time of seizure of said motor cycle. Further, the opposite party No.2 also intimated to Palvoncha police station about the seizure of said motor cycle in accordance with law and on such intimation only, the opposite party No.2 brought the said motor cycle to Nuzvid. Even thereafter the deceased, complainant No.1 failed to contact the opposite party No.2 and he made no efforts to pay the arrears of installments and he abandoned the motor cycle with the opposite party No.2. As such the opposite party No.2 was constrained to sell away the said seized motor cycle in favour of third parties and the sale proceeds were credited to the hire purchase account of the deceased, complainant No.1. The sale proceeds of said motor cycle were not sufficient to discharge the outstanding dues payable by the deceased, complainant No.1 under said hire purchase agreement and he was found due to pay a further sum of Rs.4,000/-. This company also informed and asked the deceased, complainant No.1 to pay the said balance of Rs.4,000/-, but he never cared to repay said amount and on the other hand he started devising ways and means to harass the opposite party No.2 so as to evade payment of the balance amount.
The complainant No.1 issued a notice on 28-11-2005 to the opposite party No.2 falsely alleging that he paid a sum of Rs.11,220/- to above said employee, Eda Srinivas on 10-10-2005 towards 6 installments is false. Hence, the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
3. In support of their contention, complainant No.2 to 5 filed the following documents:
Ex.A.1 is (3) cash receipts each for Rs.1,800/-, Ex.A.2 is Letter to the complainant addressed by the opposite party No.2, Ex.A.3 is Receipt issued by opposite party No.2, Ex.A.4 is complaint lodged at C.I. of police, Palvoncha town, Khammam District, Ex.A.5 is Reminder addressed to opposite party Nos.1 and 2, Ex.A.6 is Letter addressed to the complainant by opposite party No.2, Ex.A.7 is private complaint lodged at Court. Complainants also filed their written arguments.
4. On behalf of opposite party No.1 and 2, they filed chief-affidavit and marked Exs.B.1 to B.17.
5. Ex.B.1 is promissory note, Ex.B.2 is Hire purchase agreement between complainant and opposite party No.2, Ex.B.3 is Letter addressed by opposite party No.2, Ex.B.4 is Postal receipt, Ex.B.5 is postal acknowledgment, Ex.B.6 is letter addressed by opposite party No.2, Ex.B.7 is receipt No.737 issued by Police Department, Ex.B.8 is seizing letter, Ex.B.9 is courier receipt, dt.7-11-2005, Ex.B.10 is letter addressed to S.I. of police, Paloncha by the opposite party No.2, Ex.B.11 is complaint to Nuziveedu police by complainant, Ex.B.12 is reply of opposite party No.2, Ex.B.13 is receipt issued by SHO, Nuziveedu police station, Ex.B.14 is Xerox copy of receipt bearing No.21, dt.7-2-2005 issued by opposite party No.2 for Rs.1870/-, Ex.B.15 is the courier receipt , dt.22-11-2005, Ex.B.16 is the receipt issued by Opposite party No.2, dt.7-5-2005, Ex.B.17 is the receipt issued by opposite party No.2, dt.14-7-2005.
6. Opposite party No.1 filed its written arguments.
7. Heard. Upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments on both sides, the point that arose for consideration is,
8. Whether the complainants No.2 to 5 are entitled as prayed for?
Point:
9. It is the contention of the complainants that the complainant No.1 had purchased Hero Honda motor cycle bearing No.T/R AP 16 AD 6528 from the opposite party No.1 on finance by paying Rs.20,000/- in the month of January, 2005 and as per the terms of the said finance, the complainant has to pay the balance installments @ Rs.1,870/-. Accordingly the complainant No.1 paid four installments. Subsequently, the complainant No.1 did not come forward for the fifth installments on 5-6-2006. While the matter stood thus on 15-6-2005 the opposite party No.2 sent a letter demanding the complainant to pay the installments, otherwise they would seize the vehicle.
10. On the other hand the contention of the opposite parties No.1 and 2 is that the opposite party No.1 is only agent working on behalf of opposite party No.2 for sale of the motor cycles. In the instant case also, the complainant purchased the motor cycle and agreed the terms and conditions of the opposite party No.2 and the complainant No.1 executed the necessary documents in favour of opposite party No.2. As per the terms and conditions of the said hire purchase agreement entered in between the deceased, complainant No.1 and the opposite party No.2, the deceased complainant No.1 received total finance of Rs.33,000/- from the opposite party No.2 for purchase of said vehicle and the deceased complainant No.1 is liable to repay the same in installments together with interest at the rate of 18% P.A. As such towards repayment of said finance amount, the deceased complainant No.1 was allowed to repay the same in 24 installments at the rate of Rs.1,870/- per month. The complainant No.1 paid only four installments and after that the complainant No.1 deliberately failed to pay the remaining installments inspite of several demands being made by the opposite party No.2 and his personnel. As such the opposite party No.2 issued a notice by registered post to the deceased, complainant No.1 demanding him to clear the arrears of installments and also informing that in the event of his failure to pay the arrears of installments, the said motor cycle purchased by him would be seized in accordance with the authority vested with the opposite party No.2 as per the terms and conditions of the hire purchase agreement.
11. We have pursued the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the complainants No.2 to 5 and opposite parties. From the material evidence adduced by the complainants and opposite parties, it is an admitted fact that the entire transaction took place at Nuziveedu of Krishna District and Ex.A.1, receipt filed by the complainants, which is issued by the opposite parties is also shown the place of transaction took place at Tiruvuru of Krishna District. We are of the opinion that the material facts establish that the entire transaction took place at Krishna District only and not at Khammam District.
12. Hence, this forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the entire transaction took place in between the complainant No.1 and opposite parties at Krishna District only. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed.
13. In the result, the complaint is dismissed.
Dictated to the steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum on 30th day of June, 2009.
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM
KHAMAMM
Witnesses examined for complainants:
-None-
Witnessed examined for opposite parties:
-None-
Exhibits marked for complainants:
Ex.A.1 is (3) cash receipts each for Rs.1,800/-
Ex.A.2 is Letter to the complainant addressed by the opposite party No.2
Ex.A.3 is Receipt issued by opposite party No.2
Ex.A.4 is complaint lodged at C.I. of police, Palvoncha town, Khammam District
Ex.A.5 is Reminder addressed to opposite party Nos.1 and 2
Ex.A.6 is Letter addressed to the complainant by opposite party No.2
Ex.A.7 is private complaint lodged at Court. Complainants also filed their written arguments.
Exhibits marked for opposite parties :
Ex.B.1 is promissory note
Ex.B.2 is Hire purchase agreement between complainant and opposite party No.2
Ex.B.3 is Letter addressed by opposite party No.2
Ex.B.4 is Postal receipt
Ex.B.5 is postal acknowledgment
Ex.B.6 is letter addressed by opposite party No.2
Ex.B.7 is receipt No.737 issued by Police Department
Ex.B.8 is seizing letter
Ex.B.9 is courier receipt, dt.7-11-2005
Ex.B.10 is letter addressed to S.I. of police, Paloncha by the opposite party No.2
Ex.B.11 is complaint to Nuziveedu police by complainant
Ex.B.12 is reply of opposite party No.2
Ex.B.13 is receipt issued by SHO, Nuziveedu police station
Ex.B.14 is Xerox copy of receipt bearing No.21, dt.7-2-2005 issued by opposite party No.2
for Rs.1870/-,
Ex.B.15 is the courier receipt , dt.22-11-2005,
Ex.B.16 is the receipt issued by Opposite party No.2, dt.7-5-2005,
Ex.B.17 is the receipt issued by opposite party No.2, dt.14-7-2005.
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM
KHAMAMM
