IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD CDRF,Fort Road,Kasaragod consumer case(CC) No. c.c.no.27/2006
Girish
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
T.Mahaveerchand Mahamood
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
1. K.T.Sidhiq 2. P.P.Shymaladevi 3. P.Ramadevi
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
1. Girish
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. T.Mahaveerchand 2. Mahamood
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Srikanta Shetty
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
Date of filing: : 09-03-2006. Date of order : 25-11-2008. IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD CC.27/06 Dated this, the 25th day of November 2008. PRESENT SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER SMT.P.P.SHYMALADEVI : MEMBER Girish, S/o.Late.Koraga Belchada, Sandya Nivas, Kudlu, Po.RD.Nagar, } Complainant Kasaragod. 1. T.Mahaveerchand, # 48, Elephant Gate Street, Sowacarpet. Chennai.600 079. 2. Mahamood, Buto Auto Consultant, } Opposite parties Ist floor, Everest Building, Kasaragod. 671 121. O R D E R SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESISENT In brief the case of complainant is that he availed a sum of Rs.50,000/-for the purchase of Jeep bearing Reg.No. KL 14/A 7892 from Ist opposite party through his agent 2nd opposite party. As per the stipulation the complainant would have to repay the principal with interest in 15 monthly instalments, i.e. Rs.4400/- each for 10 instalments and Rs.4000/- each for the remaining instalments. Thus a total amount of Rs.64,000/- would have been paid towards the said transaction. According to complainant he had remitted the loan due almost in time and on 17-6-05 there was a settlement as per which the complainant would have to pay Rs.46,000/- on or before 30-07-05. Accordingly he paid Rs.40,000/- to Opposite party No.2 to which no official receipt was issued by Opposite party No.1. After receiving the said amount Opposite party No.2 assured the complainant that he will recommend to opposite party to waive the balance of Rs.6000/- Thereafter complainant approached opposite party for the clearance letter and the return of cheque leaves he deposited as security. Then only he came to know that Rs.40,000/- has not remitted by opposite party No.2 to Opposite party No.1. Since the hire payments are due opposite party threatened to seize the vehicle. According to complainant instead of Rs.64,000/- he paid Rs.77600/- towards the repayment of hire money. Hence the complainant. 2. According to opposite parties complainant was chronic defaulter of hire instalments. Hence there was an agreement on 17-6-05 to settle the transaction and it was settled for Rs.56,000/-. Out of which complainant paid Rs.10,000/- with an agreement to pay the balance amount of Rs.46,000/- in lumpsum on or before 30-07-05. But the complainant has not paid Rs.46,000/- as per the agreement. Hence the complainant is not entitled for clearance certificate and cheques deposited as security. 3. Complainant examined as PW1 and Exts A1 to A5 marked. Opposite party No.2 filed affidavit and faced cross-examination as DW1. No documents were produced by opposite parties. Both sides were heard and the documents perused. 4. The points to be considered in the complaint are: 1. Whether there is any valid discharge of the hire amount by complainant? 2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? 5 Points Nos.1&2. The complainant entered in the hire purchase agreement on 30-12-02. As per the terms of HP agreement the payment should have been completed on or before 30-04-04. But it is seen that complainant was a regular defaulter and hence there was an agreement to settle the payment of balance hire monies on or before 30-07-05 and that is admitted by both parties. But according to complainant in addition to the earlier payment on 17-06-05 he paid Rs.40,000/- to opposite party No.2 towards the settlement of entire hire amount. But Opposite party No.2 as DW1 denied the said payment made by complainant to him. 6. The burden to prove that there was a valid discharge is on the part of complainant. Even though complainant deposed that he had entrusted Rs.40,000/- with opposite party No.2 towards the discharge of hire transaction, no receipt, either official receipt of Opposite party No.1 or provisional receipt of opposite party No.2 is produced. 7. It is un believable that the complainant had not cared to obtain at least a provisional receipt at the time of payment of considerably a big amount of Rs.40,000/-. The character, the non-payment of monthly instalments in correct date as stipulated etc also leads to the conclusion that the say of the complainant is not true. 8. Therefore we are unable to believe the version of complainant that he had remitted Rs.40,000/- with opposite party No.2 towards the settlement of hire payment. Therefore we hold that there is no valid discharge of the hire instalments. 9. Therefore the complainant is not entitled to obtain the clearance certificate from opposite party No.2 in respect of the vehicle KL 14/A 7892 and cheques deposited as security and there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Therefore the complaint is dismissed with a cost of Rs.1000/- each to the opposite parties 1 & 2. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT A1 to A4. Cash receipts issued by OP NO.1. A5.Instalment chart book. PW1.Girish.K. DW1. Mohamood. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Pj/ Forwarded by Order SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
