BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : WARANGAL
Present: Sri D. Chiranjeevi Babu,
President.
Sri N.J. Mohan Rao,
Member
And
Smt. V.J. Praveena,
Member.
Friday, the 30th day of May, 2008.
CONSUMER DISPUTE NO. 51/2006
Between:
Yenagandula Mohan Reddy, S/o Narsimha Reddy,
Age: 48 years, Occ: Business,
R/o Chennaraopet (V) & (M),
Warangal District.
… Complainant
AND
Sriram Investments Limited,
Rep. by its Branch Manager Ch.Mahipal Reddy,
Municipal NO.11-23-1414,
I Floor, Ananthalaxmi Complex,
Beside Municipal Building,
Pochammaidan,
Warangal District. … Opposite Party
Counsel for the Complainant : Sri. G. Jagan Reddy, Advocate
Counsel for the Opposite Party : Sri Y. Manohar Rao, Advocate.
This complaint coming for final hearing before this Forum, the Forum pronounced the following Order.
ORDER
Sri D. Chiranjeevi Babu, President.
This is a complaint filed by the complainant Y. Mohan Reddy against the opposite party under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for a direction to pay a sum of Rs.21,858/- and interest @12% pa. and costs.
The brief averments of the complaint filed by the complainant are as follows:
The complainant approached the opposite party on 26-2-2003 for sanction of loan a sum of Rs.6,40,000/- for purchase of Tata Lorry bearing No.AP-36-V-7119. The opposite party sanctioned the same after fulfilling requirements. As per the agreement the complainant has to pay total Rs.8,32,650/- including interest @7.96% and insurance policy for 3 years in 35 monthly installments @ Rs.23,790/- per month. The complainant has paid installments regularly till 28-4-200. Later the complainant committed default for 3 months. Thereafter the opposite party calculated the balance amount and directed the complainant to pay Rs.2,46,600/-. Accordingly the complainant paid the same. Later he found that the opposite party has wrongfully calculated the above said amount of Rs.2,46,600/- which is excessive. The difference amount s Rs.21,858/-. The complainant got issued legal notice to opposite party on 28-4-2005. The opposite party received the same, but did not give any reply. As such the complainant filed this complaint for redressal of his grievance.
Opposite party filed the Written Version contending in brief as follows:
The complaint is not maintainable either in facts or on law and liable
tobe dismissed. There is no deficiency in service rendered by this opposite party in providing finance and recovering the amount from the complainant as such the alleged disputes of excess payment of Rs.21,858/- does not come within the purview of the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. Hence, the complainant has to approach the civil court. Hence, the complaint filed by the complainant may be dismissed.
The complainant in support of his claim filed his Affidavit in the form of chief examination and also marked Exs.A-1 to A-47. On behalf of opposite party one G. Pradeep Kumar filed his Affidavit in the form of chief examination but not marked any documents.
Now the point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to recover the amount of Rs.21,858/- and interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of last payment paid by the complainant to opposite party on 9-8-05 and also costs.
After arguments of both side counsels our reasons are like this:
The case of the complainant is that as per agreement the complainant has to pay total Rs.8,32,650/- including interest @ 7.96% p.a. and insurance policy for 3 years in 35 monthly installments @ Rs.23,790/- per month. The complainant has paid installments regularly till 28-4-2005. Later the complainant has committed default for 3 months. Thereafter the opposite party calculated the balance amount and directed the complainant to pay Rs.2,46,600/-. Accordingly the complainant has paid the same. Later the complainant found that the opposite party has wrongly calculated and paid an amount of Rs.2,46,600/- and the opposite party has collected an excess amount of Rs.21,858. For the said amount he already issued legal notices. Then he filed this case before this forum.
First of all this Forum has to see whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party or not?
For this our answer is that there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party because already the opposite party received the amount from the complainant. The case of the complainant is that the opposite party has calculated excess amount of Rs.21,858/-. If really the opposite party has calculated the excess amount of Rs.21,858/- it is the duty of the complainant he has to file a civil suit before the Civil Court for recovery of the amount only. And further another point is that if really opposite party has collected excess amount or not, for this also our answer is that he has not collected any excess amount because as per Agreement of Finance the principal sum of Rs.6,40,000/-, interest is Rs.1,48,655/- and the deposit towards insurance is Rs.43,995/-. The opposite party has paid the insurance premium for 3 years at Rs.24,661/- for the first time Rs.19,575/-, for the second time Rs.18,592/- and for the third time making a total of Rs.62,828/- out of which the complainant paid only Rs.23,000/- and further the complainant has closed the account in advance of the schedule and further it was found that the complainant was due Rs.20,893/- towards penalty/damages for delay in payment of installments and Rs.3,445/- towards pre-closure charges as per terms of agreement.
Since already the complainant he himself due an amount of Rs.20,893/- towards penalty charges for the delay in payment of installments and Rs.3,445/- towards pre-closure charges as per terms of agreement where is the question of taking excess amount of Rs.21,853/-. So on the basis of Written Version and arguments of opposite party, it is clear that the complainant he himself due an amount of Rs.28,893/- plus 3,445/- since he is due for the said amount to the opposite party, the opposite party is not liable to pay the said amount to the complainant.
Accordingly, we answered this point in favour of opposite party against the complainant.
Point NO.2: To what relief:- This first point is decided in favour of opposite party against the complainant, this point also decided in favour of opposite party against the complainant.
In the result, there are no merits in the complaint filed by the complainant and accordingly the same is dismissed, but without costs.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum today, the 30th May, 2008).
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
Member Member Preisdent,
District Consumer Forum, Warangal.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
On behalf of Complainant On behalf of Opposite Party
Affidavit of complainant filed Affidavit of O.P. filed.
EXHIBITS MARKED
On behalf of complainant
- Ex.A-1 Receipt issued by Opposite party, dt.20-02-2003.
- Ex.A-2 Motor Vehicle insurance cover note.
- Ex.A-3 Policy.
- Ex.A-4 Schedule of premium.
- Ex.A-5 Certificate of insurance of goods carrying public carriers.
- Ex.A-6 Certificate-cum-Policy schedule.
- Ex.A-7 & 8 xerox copy of receipts issued by opposite party.
- Ex.A-9 O/c of legal notice issued to opposite party, d.28-4-2006.
- Ex.A-10 courier receipt
- Ex.A-11 to A-47 are the receipts issued by opposite party.
On behalf of Opposite party.
NIL
Sd/-
President.
