BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM RAICHUR.
COMPLAINT NO. (DCFR) CC. 80/11.
THIS THE 31st DAY OF JANUARY 2012.
P R E S E N T
1. Sri. Pampapathi B.sc.B.Lib. LLB PRESIDENT.
2. Sri. Gururaj, B.com.LLB. (Spl) MEMBER.
3. Smt. Pratibha Rani Hiremath,M.A. (Sanskrit) MEMBER.
*****
COMPLAINANT :- Basavaraj S/o. Basanna, age Major, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o. Atnoor village, Tq. Manvi, Dist: Raichur.
//VERSUS//
OPPOSITE PARTY :- The Branch Manager, IKF Finance Company
Ltd., Keval Complex, Rajendra Gunj Road, Goshala Road, Raichur.
CLAIM : For to direct it to issue clearance certificate
and original documents of his vehicle bearing No. KA-36-5704 with cost and other reliefs as deems fit to the circumstances of this case.
Date of institution :- 15-11-11.
Notice served :- 16-11-11.
Date of disposal :- 31-01-12.
Complainant represented by Sri. Rachanagouda, Advocate.
Opposite represented by Sri. Sateesh.V., Advocate.
-----
This case coming for final disposal before us, the Forum on considering the entire material and evidence placed on record by the parties passed the following.
JUDGEMENT
By Sri. Pampapathi President:-
This is a complaint filed by complainant Basavaraj against the opposite IKF Finance Company Ltd., Raichur U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct the opposite to pay an amount of Rs. One Lakh, to direct it to issue clearance certificate and original documents of his vehicle bearing No. KA-36-5704 with cost and other reliefs as deems fit to the circumstances of this case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that, he purchased Goods vehicle bearing No. KA-36-5704 with financial assistance of opposite finance company ltd., Raichur. The total loan amount availed is of Rs. 99500/. He executed hypothecation agreement and monthly installments fixed for Rs. 3850/- with interest. He executed Form No. 29 & 30 in respect of the loan in favor of the opposite finance. He paid entire loan amount and his loan account was closed on 15-07-09, thereafter, he requested the opposite to issue clearance certificate and to return the original documents of the said vehicle, but opposite finance shown it is negligence in returning the above documents with one or the other reasons and thereafter its demanding to pay an amount of Rs. 30,187/- which is said to be due from the complainant towards additional finance charges for the delay caused in payment of installments. It is an illegal demand, complainant is not liable to pay such amount, as there was no delay in payment of installments. Hence he requested to grant reliefs as prayed in this complaint.
3. Opposite finance, appeared in this case through its advocate, filed written version by denying the allegations made by the complainant. It is stated by that, complainant not paid any installments regularly on the dates fixed, therefore, totally he has to pay Rs. 30,187/- towards additional finance charges for the delay, as per the terms and conditions of the hypothecation agreement, there is no deficiency in its service, accordingly, it prayed for to dismiss the complaint with heavy cost.
4. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that:
1. Whether the complainant proves that, he purchased Goods Vehicle bearing No. KA-36-5704 with financial assistance of Rs. 99500/- from opposite finance ltd., repayable on monthly installments of Rs. 3,850/- including interest by executing agreement, thereafter he paid all the installments with interest as and when demanded by the opposite finance and finally he paid entire amount and his loan account was closed on 15-07-09, but opposite finance showing its negligence in issuing clearance certificate and in returning original documents of the vehicle in spite of several requests and demands and thereby opposite finance found guilty under deficiency in its service.?
2. Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in his complaint.?
3. What order?
5. Our findings on the above points are as under:-
(1) In the affirmative
(2) As discussed in the body of this judgement and as noted in the final order.
(3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed
to pass the final order for the following :
REASONS
POINT NO.1 :-
6. To prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of the complainant was filed, he was noted as PW-1. The documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-5 are marked. On the other hand, affidavit-evidence of Manager of Opposite finance Ltd, was filed, who is noted as RW-1. Document Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-3 are marked.
7. On perusal of the pleadings of the parties, their respective affidavit-evidences and documents, only two points remains for our consideration as the case of complainant regarding purchase of the goods vehicle with financial assistance, the quantum of loan obtained payment of installments etc., are not in dispute as such we have referred the documents with regard to disputed points between the parties. The first point for our consideration is, whether the complainant is not paid the installments regularly, he stood as defaulter in payment of installments the related documents are, Ex.R-1 is the loan agreement copy, Ex.R-2 is the AFC statement maintained by the finance and Ex.R-3 is the reply given by the opposite to the legal notice issued by the complainant.
8. Clause No. 5 of the loan agreement is related to the mode of repayment of loan. Clause NO.8 deals with delayed payment charges.
9. These two documents indicates, the manner in which the finance company Ltd., is liable to charge with regard to additional finance charges in case of default. Similarly the article 5 & 6 schedule to the agreement deals with regarding the procedure required to be adopted in case of default in payment.
10. Keeping in view of these material documents on which this case stands, we have carefully perused the above said clauses and also the facts noted in reply notice Ex.R-3 dt. 24-10-11 and Ex.P-2(22) the receipt issued by the finance company ltd., are clear to say that, complainant paid entire loan installments including interest towards full and final settlement his loan account closed on 15-07-09.
11. It is further clear from the copy of the legal notice Ex.P-3 dt. 16-10-11 that as on 16-10-11 opposite not issued clearance certificate, even after issuing receipt Ex.P-2(22) by it and those documents further discloses that, charging of additional finance towards delay payment was brought on record only in reply notice Ex.P-3 dt. 24-10-11 not earlier to it. If, it is the case of delayed payment then, why opposite finance kept mum from the date 15-07-09 Ex.P-2(22) till its reply notice dt. 24-10-11, why it not took any steps as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement for recovery of such amount towards additional finance charges for default in payment of installments. No single paper is out coming from the side of the opposite for taking steps in that regard. Further as to why the opposite finance, has endorsed in Ex.P-2(22) as it is last installment of the loan agreement. In view of the circumstances, we are of the view that, the demand for additional finance charges by the complainant due to non payment of installments regularly by the opposite is nothing but it is coked up story.
12. The story of non payment of installments on regular dates and demand to pay additional finance charges as contended in this case is also a story developed by the finance company for to cover up its negligence or to get illegal monetary benefit from the complainant. Hence we are of the clear view that, opposite finance company shown its negligence in issuing clearance certificate in respect of the vehicle of the complainant.
13. As regards to non-returning the original documents by the opposite finance it took a contention that, that it not received any documents of the vehicle from the complainant. Hence, the question of returning those documents to the complainant does not arise.
14. This contention of opposite cannot be accepted for any reasons, because of the fact that, loan transaction as per under hypothecation agreement. In such transactions the original documents of the vehicle are in the custody of opposite finance only. These documents cannot be with the complainant, as such, we have rejected this contention of the opposite that it not received original documents of the vehicle from the complainant. This contention of the opposite clearly establishes the fact that, opposite finance is found guilty under deficiency in its service.
15. We have followed the principles of the rulings reported in:
1) (II) CPJ 2011 101 (NC) ICICI Bank Ltd., and another V/s. Khirodkumar Bheera and
2) III 2009 CPJ 35 (Punjab State Commission) Centurion Bank of Punjab V/s. Som Chand Katai.
16. On going through the facts and circumstances discussed above, coupled with the principles of the rulings referred above, we are of the view that, the complainant established the deficiency in service by the opposite finance company ltd., and thereby we answered Point No-1 in affirmative.
17. The complainant has prayed for to award an amount of Rs. One Lakh for the deficiency in service, he also prayed for to direct the opposite to issue clearance certificate and to direct to return original documents pertaining to his vehicle bearing No. KA-36-5704. We have considered the entire facts and circumstances of this case and conduct of the parties, we are of the view that, granting an amount of Rs. One Lakh is an exaggerated and imaginary amount claimed by him without any sufficient base. However, we have granted a lumpsum amount of Rs. 3,000/- under this head payable by opposite to complainant. The complainant also entitled for to get amount of Rs. 2,000/- towards cost of this litigation.
18. Hence the complainant totally entitled to recover Rs. 7,000/- from the opposite.
19. Further, it is directed to the opposite finance company ltd., to issue clearance certificate and to return original documents of the vehicle bearing No. KA-36-5704 which are related to hypothecation agreement of this loan transaction, accordingly we answered Point No-2
POINT NO.3:-
20. In view of our findings on Point Nos-1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed with cost.
The complainant is entitled to recover a total amount of Rs. 7,000/- from opposite Finance Company Ltd.
Opposite Finance Company is hereby directed to issue clearance certificate in respect of this loan transaction and directed to return all the original documents pertaining to goods vehicle bearing No. KA-36-5704 which are in its custody.
Opposite shall comply the above said order, within one month from the said judgment.
Intimate the parties accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 31-01-12)
Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Sri. Gururaj Sri. Pampapathi,
Member. Member. President,
Dist.Forum-Raichur. Dist-Forum-Raichur Dist-Forum-Raichur.
