BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B. Com., LL.B., Member
Wednesday the 29th day of March, 2006.
C.C.No.152/2005
S.K. Peer Basha, S/o Burhanuddin, Aged 35 years,
R/o H.No.26/181, Chittari Veedhi, Kurnool.
. . . Complainant
-Vs-
The Branch Manager, Bajaj Auto Finance Limited,
D.No.40-325-6, Abdullakhan Estate, Kurnool.
. . . Opposite party
This complaint coming on this day for Orders in the presence of Sri R. Eswaraiah, Advocate, Kurnool for complainant and Sri Md. Isaq, Advocate, Kurnool for opposite party, and stood over for consideration, till this day, the Forum made the following.
O R D E R
(As per Sri.K.V.H.Prasad, Hon’ble President)
1. This case of the complainant is filed under Section 12 of CP Act, seeking direction on the opposite parties to release the vehicle seized on 22-8-2004 and to pay to the complainant Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony, and Rs.2,000/- towards costs alleging the purchase of “Pulsar 150 CC” motor bicycle by complainant having finance of Rs.45,000/- and other financial charges of Rs.6,936/- from opposite party agreeing to repay on fixed monthly installments fixed at Rs.2,164/- for its repayment in 24 months commencing it from 20-7-2003 and paying 10 monthly installments there after and his defaulting the payment of the further monthly installments there on due to some unavoidable circumstances and so the opposite parties calling the complaint to its office on 22-8-2004 along with the said vehicle and seized it for outstanding due of Rs.9,226/- and issuing a seizure letter to the complainant in token off said seizer and inspite of receiving from the complainant there after and amount of Rs.13,000/- on 24-8-04 towards monthly installments No.11 to 16 not released the said vehicle and the said conduct of the opposite party amounting to deficiency of service and causing mental agony on account of the deprisal of possession of the vehicle.
2. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite parties has made his appearance through counsel and contested the case filing a written version denying the case of the complainant as the seizure of the vehicle for the outstanding view and deprising the complainant of the said vehicle received outstanding and advance monthly installments and there by denying any liability to the complainants claim and so seeking dismissal of the case with costs for want of territorial jurisdiction to this forum and the complainant not approaching the forum with any clean hand alleging that the complainant as a chronic defaulter as the advanced cheques issued by the complainant towards monthly installments were dishonoured and on the date the outstanding due from the complainant was Rs.17312/- towards installments and Rs.9218/- as penal interest as per the hirer summary and the inability to complete pre seizer authorization by Veera Raju- the opposite parties trust, on 22-8-2004 for want of registration number particulars of the complainants vehicle on said default and its theft by the complainant in the absence of the said Veera Raju with an ulterior motive and the complainants admission on 14-7-2005 before Jauspaul Sing the Senior officer Credit control of the opposite parties Head office as to the custody of said vehicle with him and finally the jurisdiction of the forum as conditions of purchase agreement says the disputes are subject to the jurisdiction of Courts in Pune.
3. In substantiation of the contention by the complainants side had relied on documentary record in Ex.A1 to A3 and his own sworn affidavit and that of the third party in reiteration of complaint averments and reply of the opposite party to the interrogatories of complainant, the opposite party side has taken reliance on documentary record in Ex.B1 to B5 and sworn affidavit of the opposite party and his third parties namely Veera Raju and Jauspal Sing.
4. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out the eligible seizure of the vehicle by the opposite party and the alleged the deficiency of service on the part of opposite party in not delivering back the seizure vehicle inspite of paying out standing due and there by in his liabilities of opposite parties for the claim made in the complaint.
5. The complainant alleges the seizure of his Pulsar 150 CC motor bicycle bearing register No. AP 21 J 2021 by the opposite party and 22-8-2004 vide Ex.A1. The perusal of Ex.A1 indicates that it is a letter addressed by opposite party to the name of the complainant reminding the outstanding due as Rs.8,236/- and in default as to the rights of the opposite party to take custody of the said vehicle vide clause No.VIII para 6 and 7 of hire purchase agreement No.482/919 authorizing to that effect on a person. But it does not take mention of the name of the person who is authorized for taking custody of said vehicle. Nor doesn’t mention the registration of vehicle to be taken into custody. Nor it does it mention the vehicle of the complainant with its registration No. was taken into custody from the complainant. While such is so the sworn affidavit of V.V.Raju Chowdary, Recovery Officer of the opposite party says the staling of the said pre seizure letter in Ex.A1 by the complainant and this was not discredited the complainant side. Hence, from the above state of circumstances the contentions of the opposite party as to Ex.A1 appears to be believable and the introduction of Ex.A1 by the complainant is with manafide intention to mislead and take an undue advantage there on.
6. The averments of the complaint and sworn affidavit of the complainant alleges that the opposite party has issued a seizure letter to the complainant the token off the said seizure of the vehicle from him on 22-8-2004. But no such document is placed by the complainant in substantiation of said contention. Especially when the said factor of said seizure itself was not admitted by the opposite party. Nor any mention and said document was taken by the complainant in Ex.A2 legal notice caused on the opposite party at his earliest point of time. Hence in the circumstances there appears any truth and bonafides in said contentions of the complainant as to the factuma of alleged seizer of the vehicle by the opposite party.
7. The opposite party contend the para 6 and 7 of its written version and sworn affidavit as to the documentary procedures it is adopting the opposite party in case of seizure of the vehicles from its defaulters and its further disposal and places reliance on the Ex.B2 i.e. seizing vehicle register and its relevant entries in page No.13 pertaining to the seizure transactions of August 2004 and the Ex.B3 a computerized statement of particulars of Ex.B2. The said entries in Ex.B2 at page No.13 and of Ex.B3 pertains to the month of August 2004 shows the seizure of the vehicles belonging to Rajeswari Anumala, Raja Rammohan, B.Harikrishna Prasad and M.Narayana alone. It does not take any reference either to the name of the complainant or any reference to the complainants vehicle with its registration number. As the Ex.B2 being maintained by the opposite party during its normal course of its business its bonafidies has to be believed till otherwise proved. Apart from their being no entries in seizure registration nor any inventory appears are letter of recovering agency as to its seizure on account of default appears nor the Ex.A1 bears any such entries as to seizure of the vehicle as stated in their procedures for seizure, and in the circumstances discussed earlier as to the alleged factama of the seizure of the complainants vehicle by the opposite party, in the light of the entries in Ex.B2 the alleged seizer of the complainant’s vehicle by the opposite party is remaining in high doubt.
8. The third party affidavit of K.Gangadar filed on complainant side is not remaining any worth as it did not answer the interrogatories of the opposite party side.
9. The third party notarized affidavit dated 11-11-2005 of J.S Bharathvaj filed on the opposite party side says of the complainants admission before him as to the custody of said vehicle with him and the said was not discredited by the complainant causing any interrogatories for reply of said third party. From this circumstance also the seizure of the vehicle alleged by the complainant is reaming in high doubt.
10. The Ex.B4 and B5 is the hirer summary as customer statement as on 10-11-2005 reflecting there in the improper payments received from the complainant and it shows how the penalties were levied for such irregular remittances and the ultimate outstanding balance from the complainant as Rs.26530/- and the Ex.B1 furnishes the detailed particulars as to the payment of Rs.13000/- received from the complainant on 24-8-2004.
11. Hence in sum up of the above discussion as there is any cogent material to believe the alleged seizure of the complainants vehicle, the case of the complainant is not remaining bonafide creating any liability on the opposite party for the complainant’s claim. Consequently, the case of the complainant is dismissed with costs for want of merit and force.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of March 2006.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant: Nil For the opposite party: Nil
Exhibits Marked for the complainant:
Ex.A1 Letter, Dated 22-8-2004 by Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd., Kurnool to
complainant
Ex.A2 Office copy of Legal notice, Dt.30-8-2004.
Ex.A3 Speed Post receipt (EE687682037IN, Dt.31-8-2004)
Exhibits Marked for the opposite party :
Ex.B1 Carbon copy of Dt.24-8-2004 as to payment receipt for Rs.13,000/- by
the complainant.
Ex.B2 Seizing Vehicle Register pertaining to August, 2004 in page No.13.
Ex.B3 Computerized statement from 1-8-2004 to 31-8-2004.
Ex.B4 Computerized Hirer Summary (Proposal No.919, Dt.13-6-2003)
Ex.B5 Computerized customer statement on 10-11-2005.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
Copy to:-
1. Sri. R.Eswaraiah, Advocate, Kurnool
2. Sri Md. Isaq, Advocate, Kurnool
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties:
