TATA Finance Limited V/S Sofi Sharamad S/o Peersab - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Raichur

DCFR 45/07

Sofi Sharamad S/o Peersab - Complainant(s)

Versus

TATA Finance Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sateesh V.

06 Dec 2007

ORDER

DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,DC Office Compound, Sath Kacheri
consumer case(CC) No. DCFR 45/07

Sofi Sharamad S/o Peersab						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
TATA Finance Limited TATA Finance Limited Bangalore.						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the complainant Sofi Sharamad against the Opposite Parties (1) Tata Finance Ltd., Hubli and (2) Tata Finance Ltd., Main Office Bangalore for deficiency of service. 2. On Admission of the complaint notices were issued to Ops 1 & 2. On 27-07-07 in response to service of notice the OP.No-1 remained absent. Hence he has been placed Ex-parte. The notice issued to OP.No-2 returned un-served from time to time. So the complainant sought for paper publication of the notice on 21-09-07. Accordingly the notice to OP.No.2 at Bangalore got published in Udaya Vani Kannada Daily Paper, Bangalore Edition dt. 05-10-07 for his appearance on 31-10-07. But on 31-11-07 the OP.No-2 remained absent when called out. So he too has been placed Ex-parte. So both the Ops are Ex-parte in this case. 3. During the course of Ex-parte enquiry the complainant has filed his sworn-affidavit by way of evidence and got marked as many as (12) documents at Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-12. 4. Heard the arguments of the counsel for the complainant. Even during the course of enquiry no one represented by Ops and contested the case. The following points arise for our consideration and determination: 1.Whether the complainant proves deficiency of service by the Opposite parties, as alleged.? 2.Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for? 5. Our finding on the above points are as under:- 1.In the affirmative. 2. As per final order for the following. REASONS POINT NO.1:- 6. It is the case of the complainant that he purchased one pick-up (Cabin & Load body) Tata No. 207/31 bearing Registration No. KA-36/3997 on 05-03-04 from the Opposite Parties by obtaining loan and entering into Hire Purchase Agreement with the Opposite Parties. The loan was to be rapid in three years on monthly installments of Rs. 10,850/-. The OP.No-1 had obtained cheques from him pertaining to his SB.A/c. No. 161 of Pragathi Gramina Bank (formerly known as Tungabhadra Gramina Bank) Branch Deodurga and accordingly for Opposite Party No-1 used present the cheque for collection and installments amount and thus the complainant has deposited installment amount promptly and regularly. It is also his case that in the month of May-2006 the Opposite Party No-1 did not present the cheque for recovery of the installment amount though there was sufficient amount in his A/c. So there was no fault or negligence on his part even then the complainant has verified his bank pass book and voluntarily sent Rs. 25,000/- through DD bearing No 2311128 dt. 16-10-06 and thus the complainant never stopped the payment of installments and he is not a defaulter. But on 19-10-06 Opposite Party No-1 seized his vehicle without following due process of law by showing the arrears of Rs. 42,600/-. In-fact the complainant has no due in making the payment. It is also the further case of the complainant that even after the seizer of the vehicle he has sent three DDs namely: (1) DD.No. 372255 dt. 28-10-06 for Rs. 24,000/-, (2) DD.No. 372286 dt. 04-11-06 for Rs. 15,000/-, & (3) 342626 dt. 09-12-06 for Rs. 11,000/- in favour of the Opposite Party No-1. Thus he has sent Rs. 75,000/- in all which includes the installments for the period from September to December 2006 and thus he was not in due to the Ops. But the Opposite Party No-1 without due process of law has illegally seized his vehicle and failed to release the same, this amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service by the Ops. So on 07-11-06 he got issued legal notice to Ops through RPAD to deliver the vehicle but not the same are returned un-served. Again on 18-11-06 he sent the copies of the said legal notice both the parties through a Professional Courier Service which were duly served/delivered to both the parties on 20-11-06. However he once again got issued another legal notice through his Advocate on 05-10-07 through RPAD and DTDC Courier Services to both the Ops calling upon them to deliver the seized vehicle the notice to OP.No-1 returned duly served the same was served on Op.No-1. But the notice sent to OP.No-2 returned un-served. Ops 1 & 2 have replied to the said legal notice or have not delivered the vehicle to the complainant. But OP.No-1 is using the seized vehicle daily and getting income illegally this amounts to mis-use of power and deficiency in service. Hence the complainant has sought for direction to Ops to deliver the seized vehicle in good condition and to pay Rs. 90,000/- as loss and damages and compensation. 7. The complainant has reiterated the same in his affidavit-evidence. As stated earlier in-spite of service of the notice issued to Op.No-1 by this Forum he remained absent and has been placed Ex-parte on 27-07-07. Similarly in-spite of paper publication of notice against the OP.No-2 at Bangalore in Udaya Vani Kannada Daily Paper Bangalore Edition dt. 05-10-07 calling upon him to appear on 31-10-07 the Op.No-2 remained absent so he has been placed Ex-parte. 8. The complainant has produced (12) documents at Ex.P-1 to P-12. Ex.P.1 is the copy of Seizure/ Repossession of Vehicle Inventory List dt. 19-10-06. Ex.P-2 is the copy of RC Book. Ex.P-3 is Motor Vehicle Taxation Card. Ex.P-4 is the copy of DD.No. 211128 dt. 16-10-06 for Rs. 25,000/- towards payment of loan amount. Ex.P-5 is the copy of another DD.No. 372255 dt. 28-10-06 for Rs. 24,000/-. Ex.P-6 is the copy of DD.No. 372286 dt. 04-11-06 for Rs. 15,000/-. Ex.P-7 is the copy of DD.No. 372626 dt. 19-12-06 for Rs.11,000/- Ex.P-8 is the Office copy of legal notice dt. 06-11-06. Ex.P-8 ( 1 & 2 ) are the two un-served postal covers containing the legal notice with acknowledgement cards. Ex.P-9 is the office copy of legal notice dt. 18-11-06-07. Ex.P-9(1 & 2) are the two acknowledgements of Professional Courier Services regarding service of notice on Ops 1 & 2. Ex.P-10 is the office copy of another legal notice dt. 05-01-07. Ex.P-10(1) is the postal acknowledgement of service of notice on Op.No-1. Ex.P-10(2) is the un-served RPAD cover addressed to OP.No-2. Ex.P-10 (3) is the Acknowledgement of DTDC Courier Service regarding service of notice on OP-No-1. Ex.P-10(4) is the DTDC un-served cover of OP.No-2. Ex.P-11 is the copy of Account Extract. Ex.P-12 is the copy of pass book of Pragathi Gramina Bank (Tungabhadra Gramina Bank). 9. As seen above the complainant contends that at the time of purchase of the vehicle under Hire Purchase Agreement on 05-03-04 the Ops, had obtained blank cheques of his S.B. A/c. No. 161 of Prgaathi Gramina Bank (formerly known as Tungabhadra Gramina Bank) Branch Deodurga towards repayment of monthly loan installments @ Rs. 10,850/- since the loan was to be repaid within three years i.e, in 36 monthly installments. Ex.P-11 the copy of Account Extract shows the en-cashment of the cheques in favour of Tata Finance (Ops) right from 05-05-04 till 27-04-06. This shows the payment of monthly installments from the date of purchase till April-2006. It also corroborates the contention of the complainant that he had given blank cheques towards repayment of monthly installments obtained by the OPs. The Ops have remained absent in-spite of service of notice by this Forum this conduct of the Ops in remaining absent also probablize the case of the complainant regarding his having had given (36) blank cheques towards the repayment of the loan. 10 The Account Extract Ex.P-11 also shows bank balance of Rs. 27,051/- in the month of May-2006. Further the complainant has also produced copies of four DDs at Ex.P-4 to Ex.P-7 to show the total deposit of Rs. 75,000/-. Namely Ex.P-4 DD dt. 16-10-06 for Rs. 25,000/-, Ex.P-5 DD dt. 28-10-06 for Rs. 24,000/-, Ex.P-6 DD dt. 04-11-06 for Rs. 15,000/- & Ex.P-7 DD dt. 19-12-06 for Rs. 11,000/- and all these DDs are sent in the name of Opposite Party No-1. Admittedly the vehicle has been seized by the Opposite Parties on 19-10-06 as per Re-possession Vehicle Inventory List at Ex.P-1. The first DD dt. 16-10-06 vide Ex.P-4 was sent on 16-10-06 which is earlier to the seizure of the vehicle vide Ex.P-1. The remaining three DDs vide Ex.P-5 to Ex.P-7 are sent subsequent to the seizure of the vehicle. From a close perusal of debit entries in the Account Extract at Ex.P-11 it probobalizes the contention of the complainant that blank cheques given by him to Opposite Parties having been en-cashed right from May-2004 till April-2006. Further this bank A/c. Ex.P.11 shows the bank balance of Rs. 27,057/- in the month of May-2006 so we are at a loss to know as to why the blank cheque for the month of May-2006 was not presented by the Opposite Party for encashment. Even Ex.P-1 the Re-possession of the vehicle proceedings do not disclose the reason as to why the vehicle was seized by them. Added to this the Opposite Parties though having been served with notice of the complaint issued by this Forum have remained absent and not contested the case of the complainant and thereby they have not disclosed their defence as to why they seized the vehicle in-question on 19-10-06, especially when according to the complainant he had issued blank cheques. If in-fact the blank cheques for the month of May-2006 to September 2006 having been dishonored, then in the natural course of events Ops could have cautioned the complainant by intimation in that regard. So in the absence of any material regarding dishonor of cheque for the month of May-2006 or from May-2006 onwards and in the absence of any kind of defence, it amply shows that for the reasons best known to the Opposite Parties they illegally seized the vehicle in-question on 19-10-06 especially when DD for Rs. 25,000/- was sent by complainant on 16-10-06 and three more DDs were sent thereafter as discussed above. So all these factors clubbed together go to show not only deficiency of service but also shows unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties. So Point No-1 is answered in the affirmative. POINT NO.2:- 11. The complainant has sought for direction to the Opposite Parties to redeliver the seized vehicle to the complainant in good condition and to award Rs. 90,000/- as loss, damages and compensation. So far as the first part of relief is concerned, in-view of our discussion and finding on Point No-1 the complainant is entitled for redeliver of the seized vehicle in good condition. So far as the claim of Rs. 90,000/- is concerned, the complainant has stated that he sustained loss in all Rs. 90,000/- due to seizure of the vehicle because he used to earn Rs. 500/ to 600/- per day from the vehicle and due to seizure of the vehicle he has been put to greater monetary loss and suffered mental torture etc., Except his bare and self interested testimony the complainant has not substantiated by any material particulars, however having regard to the seizure of the vehicle from 19-10-06 as per Re-possession of Vehicle Inventory List issued by Opposite Parties vide Ex.P-1 and under the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel it justified in awarding a global compensation of Rs. 10,000/- including cost of litigation. In this view of the matter we pass the following order: ORDER The complaint of the complainant is allowed in part. The Opposite Parties No- 1 & 2 jointly and severally shall redeliver the seized vehicle bearing No. KA-36/3997 to the complainant in good condition as per Repossession Inventory List dt. 19-10-06 issued by them vide Ex.P-1. The Opposite Parties shall also pay a global compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant including cost of litigation. Both the Opposite Parties shall comply this order within (2) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Office to furnish certified copy of this order to both the parties who are Ex-parte, forth with by RPAD. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 06-12-07) Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Sri.Gururaj Sri.N.H.Savalagi, Member. Member. President, Dist.Forum-Raichur. Dist-Forum-Raichur. Dist-Forum-Raichur.

This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the complainant Sofi Sharamad against the Opposite Parties (1) Tata Finance Ltd., Hubli and (2) Tata Finance Ltd., Main Office Bangalore for deficiency of service. 2. On Admission of the complaint notices were issued to Ops 1 & 2. On 27-07-07 in response to service of notice the OP.No-1 remained absent. Hence he has been placed Ex-parte. The notice issued to OP.No-2 returned un-served from time to time. So the complainant sought for paper publication of the notice on 21-09-07. Accordingly the notice to OP.No.2 at Bangalore got published in Udaya Vani Kannada Daily Paper, Bangalore Edition dt. 05-10-07 for his appearance on 31-10-07. But on 31-11-07 the OP.No-2 remained absent when called out. So he too has been placed Ex-parte. So both the Ops are Ex-parte in this case. 3. During the course of Ex-parte enquiry the complainant has filed his sworn-affidavit by way of evidence and got marked as many as (12) documents at Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-12. 4. Heard the arguments of the counsel for the complainant. Even during the course of enquiry no one represented by Ops and contested the case. The following points arise for our consideration and determination: 1.Whether the complainant proves deficiency of service by the Opposite parties, as alleged.? 2.Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for? 5. Our finding on the above points are as under:- 1.In the affirmative. 2. As per final order for the following. REASONS POINT NO.1:- 6. It is the case of the complainant that he purchased one pick-up (Cabin & Load body) Tata No. 207/31 bearing Registration No. KA-36/3997 on 05-03-04 from the Opposite Parties by obtaining loan and entering into Hire Purchase Agreement with the Opposite Parties. The loan was to be rapid in three years on monthly installments of Rs. 10,850/-. The OP.No-1 had obtained cheques from him pertaining to his SB.A/c. No. 161 of Pragathi Gramina Bank (formerly known as Tungabhadra Gramina Bank) Branch Deodurga and accordingly for Opposite Party No-1 used present the cheque for collection and installments amount and thus the complainant has deposited installment amount promptly and regularly. It is also his case that in the month of May-2006 the Opposite Party No-1 did not present the cheque for recovery of the installment amount though there was sufficient amount in his A/c. So there was no fault or negligence on his part even then the complainant has verified his bank pass book and voluntarily sent Rs. 25,000/- through DD bearing No 2311128 dt. 16-10-06 and thus the complainant never stopped the payment of installments and he is not a defaulter. But on 19-10-06 Opposite Party No-1 seized his vehicle without following due process of law by showing the arrears of Rs. 42,600/-. In-fact the complainant has no due in making the payment. It is also the further case of the complainant that even after the seizer of the vehicle he has sent three DDs namely: (1) DD.No. 372255 dt. 28-10-06 for Rs. 24,000/-, (2) DD.No. 372286 dt. 04-11-06 for Rs. 15,000/-, & (3) 342626 dt. 09-12-06 for Rs. 11,000/- in favour of the Opposite Party No-1. Thus he has sent Rs. 75,000/- in all which includes the installments for the period from September to December 2006 and thus he was not in due to the Ops. But the Opposite Party No-1 without due process of law has illegally seized his vehicle and failed to release the same, this amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service by the Ops. So on 07-11-06 he got issued legal notice to Ops through RPAD to deliver the vehicle but not the same are returned un-served. Again on 18-11-06 he sent the copies of the said legal notice both the parties through a Professional Courier Service which were duly served/delivered to both the parties on 20-11-06. However he once again got issued another legal notice through his Advocate on 05-10-07 through RPAD and DTDC Courier Services to both the Ops calling upon them to deliver the seized vehicle the notice to OP.No-1 returned duly served the same was served on Op.No-1. But the notice sent to OP.No-2 returned un-served. Ops 1 & 2 have replied to the said legal notice or have not delivered the vehicle to the complainant. But OP.No-1 is using the seized vehicle daily and getting income illegally this amounts to mis-use of power and deficiency in service. Hence the complainant has sought for direction to Ops to deliver the seized vehicle in good condition and to pay Rs. 90,000/- as loss and damages and compensation. 7. The complainant has reiterated the same in his affidavit-evidence. As stated earlier in-spite of service of the notice issued to Op.No-1 by this Forum he remained absent and has been placed Ex-parte on 27-07-07. Similarly in-spite of paper publication of notice against the OP.No-2 at Bangalore in Udaya Vani Kannada Daily Paper Bangalore Edition dt. 05-10-07 calling upon him to appear on 31-10-07 the Op.No-2 remained absent so he has been placed Ex-parte. 8. The complainant has produced (12) documents at Ex.P-1 to P-12. Ex.P.1 is the copy of Seizure/ Repossession of Vehicle Inventory List dt. 19-10-06. Ex.P-2 is the copy of RC Book. Ex.P-3 is Motor Vehicle Taxation Card. Ex.P-4 is the copy of DD.No. 211128 dt. 16-10-06 for Rs. 25,000/- towards payment of loan amount. Ex.P-5 is the copy of another DD.No. 372255 dt. 28-10-06 for Rs. 24,000/-. Ex.P-6 is the copy of DD.No. 372286 dt. 04-11-06 for Rs. 15,000/-. Ex.P-7 is the copy of DD.No. 372626 dt. 19-12-06 for Rs.11,000/- Ex.P-8 is the Office copy of legal notice dt. 06-11-06. Ex.P-8 ( 1 & 2 ) are the two un-served postal covers containing the legal notice with acknowledgement cards. Ex.P-9 is the office copy of legal notice dt. 18-11-06-07. Ex.P-9(1 & 2) are the two acknowledgements of Professional Courier Services regarding service of notice on Ops 1 & 2. Ex.P-10 is the office copy of another legal notice dt. 05-01-07. Ex.P-10(1) is the postal acknowledgement of service of notice on Op.No-1. Ex.P-10(2) is the un-served RPAD cover addressed to OP.No-2. Ex.P-10 (3) is the Acknowledgement of DTDC Courier Service regarding service of notice on OP-No-1. Ex.P-10(4) is the DTDC un-served cover of OP.No-2. Ex.P-11 is the copy of Account Extract. Ex.P-12 is the copy of pass book of Pragathi Gramina Bank (Tungabhadra Gramina Bank). 9. As seen above the complainant contends that at the time of purchase of the vehicle under Hire Purchase Agreement on 05-03-04 the Ops, had obtained blank cheques of his S.B. A/c. No. 161 of Prgaathi Gramina Bank (formerly known as Tungabhadra Gramina Bank) Branch Deodurga towards repayment of monthly loan installments @ Rs. 10,850/- since the loan was to be repaid within three years i.e, in 36 monthly installments. Ex.P-11 the copy of Account Extract shows the en-cashment of the cheques in favour of Tata Finance (Ops) right from 05-05-04 till 27-04-06. This shows the payment of monthly installments from the date of purchase till April-2006. It also corroborates the contention of the complainant that he had given blank cheques towards repayment of monthly installments obtained by the OPs. The Ops have remained absent in-spite of service of notice by this Forum this conduct of the Ops in remaining absent also probablize the case of the complainant regarding his having had given (36) blank cheques towards the repayment of the loan. 10 The Account Extract Ex.P-11 also shows bank balance of Rs. 27,051/- in the month of May-2006. Further the complainant has also produced copies of four DDs at Ex.P-4 to Ex.P-7 to show the total deposit of Rs. 75,000/-. Namely Ex.P-4 DD dt. 16-10-06 for Rs. 25,000/-, Ex.P-5 DD dt. 28-10-06 for Rs. 24,000/-, Ex.P-6 DD dt. 04-11-06 for Rs. 15,000/- & Ex.P-7 DD dt. 19-12-06 for Rs. 11,000/- and all these DDs are sent in the name of Opposite Party No-1. Admittedly the vehicle has been seized by the Opposite Parties on 19-10-06 as per Re-possession Vehicle Inventory List at Ex.P-1. The first DD dt. 16-10-06 vide Ex.P-4 was sent on 16-10-06 which is earlier to the seizure of the vehicle vide Ex.P-1. The remaining three DDs vide Ex.P-5 to Ex.P-7 are sent subsequent to the seizure of the vehicle. From a close perusal of debit entries in the Account Extract at Ex.P-11 it probobalizes the contention of the complainant that blank cheques given by him to Opposite Parties having been en-cashed right from May-2004 till April-2006. Further this bank A/c. Ex.P.11 shows the bank balance of Rs. 27,057/- in the month of May-2006 so we are at a loss to know as to why the blank cheque for the month of May-2006 was not presented by the Opposite Party for encashment. Even Ex.P-1 the Re-possession of the vehicle proceedings do not disclose the reason as to why the vehicle was seized by them. Added to this the Opposite Parties though having been served with notice of the complaint issued by this Forum have remained absent and not contested the case of the complainant and thereby they have not disclosed their defence as to why they seized the vehicle in-question on 19-10-06, especially when according to the complainant he had issued blank cheques. If in-fact the blank cheques for the month of May-2006 to September 2006 having been dishonored, then in the natural course of events Ops could have cautioned the complainant by intimation in that regard. So in the absence of any material regarding dishonor of cheque for the month of May-2006 or from May-2006 onwards and in the absence of any kind of defence, it amply shows that for the reasons best known to the Opposite Parties they illegally seized the vehicle in-question on 19-10-06 especially when DD for Rs. 25,000/- was sent by complainant on 16-10-06 and three more DDs were sent thereafter as discussed above. So all these factors clubbed together go to show not only deficiency of service but also shows unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties. So Point No-1 is answered in the affirmative. POINT NO.2:- 11. The complainant has sought for direction to the Opposite Parties to redeliver the seized vehicle to the complainant in good condition and to award Rs. 90,000/- as loss, damages and compensation. So far as the first part of relief is concerned, in-view of our discussion and finding on Point No-1 the complainant is entitled for redeliver of the seized vehicle in good condition. So far as the claim of Rs. 90,000/- is concerned, the complainant has stated that he sustained loss in all Rs. 90,000/- due to seizure of the vehicle because he used to earn Rs. 500/ to 600/- per day from the vehicle and due to seizure of the vehicle he has been put to greater monetary loss and suffered mental torture etc., Except his bare and self interested testimony the complainant has not substantiated by any material particulars, however having regard to the seizure of the vehicle from 19-10-06 as per Re-possession of Vehicle Inventory List issued by Opposite Parties vide Ex.P-1 and under the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel it justified in awarding a global compensation of Rs. 10,000/- including cost of litigation. In this view of the matter we pass the following order: ORDER The complaint of the complainant is allowed in part. The Opposite Parties No- 1 & 2 jointly and severally shall redeliver the seized vehicle bearing No. KA-36/3997 to the complainant in good condition as per Repossession Inventory List dt. 19-10-06 issued by them vide Ex.P-1. The Opposite Parties shall also pay a global compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant including cost of litigation. Both the Opposite Parties shall comply this order within (2) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Office to furnish certified copy of this order to both the parties who are Ex-parte, forth with by RPAD. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 06-12-07) Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Sri.Gururaj Sri.N.H.Savalagi, Member. Member. President, Dist.Forum-Raichur. Dist-Forum-Raichur. Dist-Forum-Raichur.