The Branch Manager, L & T Finance Ltd., Sindhanoor V/S M. Subramanyya S/o. Y. Shellankan Nadar - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Raichur

CC/09/87

M. Subramanyya S/o. Y. Shellankan Nadar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, L & T Finance Ltd., Sindhanoor - Opp.Party(s)

Sri. T.M. Swamy

13 Jan 2010

ORDER

DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,DC Office Compound, Sath Kacheri
consumer case(CC) No. CC/09/87

M. Subramanyya S/o. Y. Shellankan Nadar						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
The Branch Manager, L & T Finance Ltd., Sindhanoor						...........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

JUDGEMENT By Sri. Pampapathi President:- This is a complaint filed by the complainant M. Subramanya against opposite L&T Finance Limited U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct the opposite finance to issue NOC and other original documents of his vehicle bearing No. KA-36/M-3955, for to pay an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as a compensation for mental harassment and Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of this litigation. 2. The brief facts of the complainant case are that, he availed loan of Rs. 4,15,000/- from opposite for purchase of the Tractor. As per the terms and conditions of the loan and repayment schedule, he gave 24 cheques of each of Rs. 20,665/-. All the cheques on regular installments have encashed by the opposite, the cheque bearing No. 682317 was presented by the opposite was dishonoured due to insufficient funds, as it was presented by it at the earliest of the due installment thereafter he made arrangement and paid the amount. Now the opposite is demanding to pay the penal interest at the rate of 36% p.a. it is refusing to issue NOC and other documents of the vehicle, he requested orally and in writing by issuing legal notice, but opposite shown its negligence in issuing NOC and other original documents, as such this complaint is filed by him for the reliefs as noted in it. 3. Notice of this case was issued to complainant by RPAD, which was personally served on the opposite and it was posted on 14-12-09 for his appearance that day, Branch Manager of opposite not present. No one have appeared on behalf of opposite, as such he was placed Ex-parte and proceeded further. 4. In the light of the circumstances stated above. Now the following points that arise for our consideration and determination are that: 1. Whether the complainant proves that, opposite finance illegally demanding to pay penal interest of 36% p.a. in addition to the amount already paid without any fault of him and it is not issuing NOC and other original documents of the vehicle bearing No. KA-36/M-3955, which is contrary to the terms and conditions of the loan, agreement he requested the opposite in oral as well as in writing to issue NOC and other original documents but it shown its negligence in returning the documents and thereby opposite found guilty under deficiency in its service.? 2. Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in the complaint. 3. What order? 4. Our findings on the above points are as under:- (1) In the affirmative. (2) As discussed in the body of this judgement and as sated 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 & 2:- 5. To prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of the complainant was filed, he was noted as PW-1. Documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-7, Ex.P-3(1) and Ex.P-7(1) and Ex.P-7(2) are marked. 6. As per the pleadings and the contents of the affidavit-evidence it discloses that, opposite finance is demanding to pay penal interest at the rate of 36% p.a. in spite of payment of all the installments regularly. The second allegation of the complainant against opposite is that, it is not issuing NOC and other original documents of his Tractor bearing No. KA-36/M-3955. 7. In support of these allegations, he filed his affidavit-evidence and documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-7. All the above said documents clearly goes to show that complainant paid installments of loan regularly, there is no justification is demanding 36% penal interest by the opposite and at the same time there is no justification on the part of this opposite for non issuing NOC and other original documents of the said vehicle, as such the affidavit-evidence of the complainant are corroborating with the documentary evidences as well as his affidavit-evidence, accordingly we are of the view that the attitude of the opposite towards complainant is deficiency in service, hence we answered Point No-1 in affirmative. 8. As regards to the reliefs as claimed by the complainant in this case are that, he requested us to direct the opposite to issue NOC and other original documents etc., of the tractor bearing No. KA-36/M-3955, as we have already come to a conclusion that there is no justification for with holding those documents by the opposite, as such we have directed the opposite to issue NOC and other original documents of the tractor bearing No. KA-36/M-3955. 9. As regards to other reliefs claimed by the complainant at Sl.N0. b & c, we are of the view that the circumstances stated by the complainant in this case are not showing such extraneous circumstances to award an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of the proceedings. However we have taken note of entire case of the complainant and ordered to pay an amount of Rs. 3,000/- towards deficiency in service on the part of opposite and also we have directed opposite to pay an amount of Rs. 2,000/- towards cost of this litigation. Totally complainant is entitled to recover Rs. 5,000/- under these two heads from the opposite, accordingly we answered Point No- 1 & 2. POINT NO.3:- 10. 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. Opposite is hereby directed to issue NOC and other original documents pertaining to the Tractor bearing No. KA-36/M-3955 of complainant. The complainant is entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 5,000/- from the opposite. One month time is given to the opposite to comply the above said order. Intimate the parties accordingly. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 13-01-10) Sd/- Sri. Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.

JUDGEMENT By Sri. Pampapathi President:- This is a complaint filed by the complainant M. Subramanya against opposite L&T Finance Limited U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct the opposite finance to issue NOC and other original documents of his vehicle bearing No. KA-36/M-3955, for to pay an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as a compensation for mental harassment and Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of this litigation. 2. The brief facts of the complainant case are that, he availed loan of Rs. 4,15,000/- from opposite for purchase of the Tractor. As per the terms and conditions of the loan and repayment schedule, he gave 24 cheques of each of Rs. 20,665/-. All the cheques on regular installments have encashed by the opposite, the cheque bearing No. 682317 was presented by the opposite was dishonoured due to insufficient funds, as it was presented by it at the earliest of the due installment thereafter he made arrangement and paid the amount. Now the opposite is demanding to pay the penal interest at the rate of 36% p.a. it is refusing to issue NOC and other documents of the vehicle, he requested orally and in writing by issuing legal notice, but opposite shown its negligence in issuing NOC and other original documents, as such this complaint is filed by him for the reliefs as noted in it. 3. Notice of this case was issued to complainant by RPAD, which was personally served on the opposite and it was posted on 14-12-09 for his appearance that day, Branch Manager of opposite not present. No one have appeared on behalf of opposite, as such he was placed Ex-parte and proceeded further. 4. In the light of the circumstances stated above. Now the following points that arise for our consideration and determination are that: 1. Whether the complainant proves that, opposite finance illegally demanding to pay penal interest of 36% p.a. in addition to the amount already paid without any fault of him and it is not issuing NOC and other original documents of the vehicle bearing No. KA-36/M-3955, which is contrary to the terms and conditions of the loan, agreement he requested the opposite in oral as well as in writing to issue NOC and other original documents but it shown its negligence in returning the documents and thereby opposite found guilty under deficiency in its service.? 2. Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in the complaint. 3. What order? 4. Our findings on the above points are as under:- (1) In the affirmative. (2) As discussed in the body of this judgement and as sated 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 & 2:- 5. To prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of the complainant was filed, he was noted as PW-1. Documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-7, Ex.P-3(1) and Ex.P-7(1) and Ex.P-7(2) are marked. 6. As per the pleadings and the contents of the affidavit-evidence it discloses that, opposite finance is demanding to pay penal interest at the rate of 36% p.a. in spite of payment of all the installments regularly. The second allegation of the complainant against opposite is that, it is not issuing NOC and other original documents of his Tractor bearing No. KA-36/M-3955. 7. In support of these allegations, he filed his affidavit-evidence and documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-7. All the above said documents clearly goes to show that complainant paid installments of loan regularly, there is no justification is demanding 36% penal interest by the opposite and at the same time there is no justification on the part of this opposite for non issuing NOC and other original documents of the said vehicle, as such the affidavit-evidence of the complainant are corroborating with the documentary evidences as well as his affidavit-evidence, accordingly we are of the view that the attitude of the opposite towards complainant is deficiency in service, hence we answered Point No-1 in affirmative. 8. As regards to the reliefs as claimed by the complainant in this case are that, he requested us to direct the opposite to issue NOC and other original documents etc., of the tractor bearing No. KA-36/M-3955, as we have already come to a conclusion that there is no justification for with holding those documents by the opposite, as such we have directed the opposite to issue NOC and other original documents of the tractor bearing No. KA-36/M-3955. 9. As regards to other reliefs claimed by the complainant at Sl.N0. b & c, we are of the view that the circumstances stated by the complainant in this case are not showing such extraneous circumstances to award an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of the proceedings. However we have taken note of entire case of the complainant and ordered to pay an amount of Rs. 3,000/- towards deficiency in service on the part of opposite and also we have directed opposite to pay an amount of Rs. 2,000/- towards cost of this litigation. Totally complainant is entitled to recover Rs. 5,000/- under these two heads from the opposite, accordingly we answered Point No- 1 & 2. POINT NO.3:- 10. 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. Opposite is hereby directed to issue NOC and other original documents pertaining to the Tractor bearing No. KA-36/M-3955 of complainant. The complainant is entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 5,000/- from the opposite. One month time is given to the opposite to comply the above said order. Intimate the parties accordingly. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 13-01-10) Sd/- Sri. Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.