Telangana

Medak

CC/41/2012

CHADRAPPA BAGLI S/O SIDANNA - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE BRANCH MANAGER, SHRIRAM CITY UNION FINAACE LTD., - Opp.Party(s)

SRI C.NARSINGRAJ

01 Jul 2014

ORDER

 

                       

           This case came up for final hearing before us on 17.06.2014 in the presence of Sri N. Shiva Kumar, advocate for complainant, Sri. T. Satyanaraya, advocate for opposite party no. 1, Sri M. Umakanth, advocate for opposite party no. 2 and Sri B. Krishna Murthy, Advocate for opposite party no. 3, on perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum delivered the following:

 

O R D E R

(Per Se Smt. Meena Ramanathan, Member)

 

                   The case of the Complainant, which has been filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, in brief, is that the complainant is a farmer – Chandrappa Bagli – who purchased a tractor from the opposite party no. 2, the dealer for the opposite party no. 1 – the manufacturer. The opposite party no. 2 also arranged the finance for the tractor through the opposite party no. 3. The total cost of the tractor was Rs. 4,66,000/-.  The complainant paid an initial amount of Rs. 66,000/- and also submits that the opposite party no. 3 took various signatures on agreement papers and obtained signatures on blank cheques of Mr. Sangram Patil – his friend who stood as guarantor. Xerox copies of these documents were not given to them, despite many requests. After 10 days, the tractor was returned to the opposite party no. 2 for repair work and the complainant also made two more payments and thus a total of Rs. 1,04,622/- was paid to opposite party no. 3 and receipts were also duly issued.

                   On 04.10.2011 he received a notice from opposite party no. 3 asking him to pay a balance of Rs. 3,96,378/- after deducting the amount already paid by him and after deducting Rs. 1,10,000/- the sale proceeds of the tractor. He was informed that the tractor was seized on 29.04.2009 and later auctioned. He states that the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 in collusion have sold the tractor which was in the custody of the opposite party no. 2 for repair work. The said seizure and sale are illegal and have caused him considerable loss. He was given a defective tractor and repair work was not attended to either.

                   He states that he and his family are cultivating their agricultural lands at Kambalapally, Zaheerabad town and their annual income is Rs. 3,00,000/- . He claims to have incurred heavy loss owing to the purchase of defective tractor and further damage duly caused by illegal seizure and sale. Therefore he seeks direction from this Forum against the opposite parties. In his prayer he seeks that the opposite parties no. 1 and 2 together clear the amount due to opposite party no. 3 along with interest. To reimburse the amount he paid to opposite party no. 3 - Rs. 66,000/- and Rs. 1,04,662/-, further Rs. 50,000/- towards agony he suffered, Rs. 3,00,000/- towards compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards cost.

2.             The opposite party no. 1 filed their counter denying the allegations of the complainant they are the manufacturers and their company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The tractors from their factory pass through various tests and quality checks and only then dispatch the tractors to their dealers. It is the responsibility of the customer to drive the vehicle in accordance with the guide lines prescribed in the “owner’s manual”. In the present case they state that the complainant has failed to prove any evidence which shows that the vehicle was defective. Further they assert that the complaint is barred by limitation and is liable to be dismissed. Moreover they state that it is false that opposite party no. 2 agreed to replace the defective tractor. The complainant filed this complaint with an ulterior motive and is thus to be dismissed with heavy cost.

3.         The opposite party no. 2 filed their counter with the following submissions. They being the dealers of opposite party no. 1, assured the complainant that the tractor with 4 cylinders he less maintenance charges and good performance. They also submit that they could help with financial assistance from the opposite party no. 3. The allegation that the tractor was giving the complainant trouble after 10 days and given to them for repair or replacement is totally denied. The payment details made to the opposite party no. 3 are not any concern of theirs. They deny that the tractor was in their custody for repair. They also state that the present complaint is barred by limitation. In the above stated circumstances they pray that this Forum dismisses the complaint along with costs.

4.            The opposite party no. 3 filed their written version contending, interalia, that the complainant purchased tractor (of opposite party no. 1) from the opposite party no. 2 through the financial assistance of the opposite party no. 3. In fact the complainant approached the opposite party no. 3 to advance financial assistance. The terms and conditions of the agreement were explained to him in telugu and that one independent surety has to stand as guarantee for future installments was also explained to him. Thus Mr. Sangram Patel offered to stand as surety/guarantee and executed the surety bond. Also a copy of the agreement was obtained by the complainant and the opposite party no. 3 has a letter from the complainant in this regard. They do not deny that the complainant paid Rs.1,04,662/- and receipts issued. As the complainant was not paying the installments correctly according to the terms of their agreement, notice was issued to him and the vehicle was seized only after doing so. They claim to have followed the procedure before sale of the tractor and the proceeds from the sale are adjusted to the complainant’s account. He is only the financier and there is no deficiency of service on his part. Thus they pray the complaint against them be dismissed.

5.             The complainant filed his evidence affidavit and marked Exs. A1 to A6 to substantiate his claim. On behalf of opposite party no. 1, their Manager legal filed her evidence affidavit. No documents have been filed by opposite party no. 1. For opposite party no. 3 – G. Ramesh Babu, Divisional Manager of opposite party no. 3 filed his evidence affidavit and marked Exs. B1 to B23 to substantiate their claim.

                   The counsel for the complainant submitted oral arguments and reported no written argument. Counsel for opposite party no. 1 submitted written arguments. The opposite party nos. 2 did not file written arguments nor did they file any exhibits. The opposite party no. 3 did not file their written arguments.

                   Heard.

6.               Now the point for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and if so the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed by him?

Point:

7.             It is not in dispute that the complainant purchased a tractor from opposite party no. 2 and that the opposite party no. 1is the manufacturer of the tractor. Neither is it disputed that opposite party 3 is the financier. The dispute pertains to the illegal seizure and sale of the said tractor by opposite party no. 3.

                   Exs. A1 and A2 are payment receipts made by the complainant to opposite party no. 3. Ex. A1 is for Rs. 52,332/- and Ex. A2 is for Rs. 52,330/-. They are dated 30.06.2008 and 18.11.2008 respectively. Ex.A3 is the letter from the opposite party no. 3 to the complainant and in this notice a detailed account of amounts paid and due is given. Ex.A4 is the brochure of the tractor, the complainant had purchased from the opposite party no. 2 – the dealer. Ex.A5 is the legal notice issued to opposite party no. 3 and Ex. A6 is their reply, where in they state that the vehicle was seized and thereafter sold and the sale proceeds adjusted to his loan account. There is still a balance due against the loan account. All the papers are with the arbitrator and that the client is advised to secure all the relevant papers from there.

8.          In his complaint the complainant has stated that within 10 days of taking delivery of the tractor, he returned it to opposite party no. 2 for repair. There is no letter or document to substantiate his claim. No correspondence has been filed with the acknowledgement of opposite party no. 2 in this regard. He claims that the tractor was defective and that he was assured that they could exchange the tractor for another one. These are all mere statements without any documentary evidence.

9.          In their written arguments of opposite party no. 1, submit that they are not a party to this dispute. The tractor was not in their custody nor did the complainant submit the nature of defects regarding the tractor. Since the seizure and subsequent sale was done by opposite party no. 3, this dispute doesn’t involve them is anyway.

10.           The opposite party no. 3, in their defence filed Exs. B1 to B23. Ex. B1 is the copy of GPA. Ex. B2 is the copy of incorporation certificate. Ex. B3 is copy of the loan application and number of installments is 36 i.e. a period of 3 years. Ex. B4 is copy of loan agreement. Ex. B5 is the copy of the promissory note signed by the complainant for Rs. 4,00,000/- at 19% p.a. Ex. B6 is the schedule- I. Ex. B7 – is the legal notice issued to the complainant dated 15.02.2011. This notice was issued to the complainant and the guarantor. In this letter opposite party no. 3 states that as on 25.04.2009 they were forced to seize the vehicle as only 7 installments had been paid. The loan was taken on 26^th March 2008 (Ex. B4). And as on 25.04.2009, only 7 installments had been paid by the complainant. In a period of 11 months, only 7 installments were paid. Ex. B8 and B9 are receipts of the legal notice being served on the complainant and the guarantor – Mr. Sangram Patil. Ex.B10 is the copy of statement of account and Ex. B11 is their calculation memo. Ex.B12 is the original affidavit of Sangram Patil. Ex. B13 is the copy of seizure notice dated 10.02.2009.

                   Ex.B14 is the postal cover containing seizure notice being returned. Ex. B15 is the seizure notice being sent for a second time.  Ex.B16 postal acknowledgement of the seizure notice. Ex. B17 Sale notice date 11.05.2009 Ex. B18 is the postal acknowledgement. Ex. B19 office copy after sale dated 04.10.2011.  The complainant has also filed a copy of this Ex. B19. Exs. B20, Ex.B21 and Ex. B22 are the agreement signed by the complainant dated 26.03.2008, wherein he states that the terms and conditions of the loan agreement are explained to him.

                   Ex.B23 is the undertaking by the borrower (complainant), dated 26.03.2008 – All the documents filed by the opposite party no. 3 substantiate their stance and strengthen their arguments. The complainant was fully aware of the terms and conditions of the loan agreement although it appears that the opposite party no. 3 charging interest @ 19% p.a. is highly irregular. The loan was obtained vide loan agreement no. ISNRTRZHR00243/08 ON 26.03.2008 and details of vehicle engine no. C436000389 MV and chassis no. AMW3065000386 is given in Ex. B20. In Ex. B21 the complainant has signed the agreement where it is clearly stated that, if he is unable to make the payments correctly, the vehicle which is hypothecated to opposite party no. 3 can be sold and the sale proceeds adjusted towards the loan account. Ex. B22 is the acknowledgement of the agreement fully explained to him.

11.              Due notices were served on the complainant before seizure and the subsequent sale of the hypothecated vehicle.

12.              The counsel for the complainant filed a citation, with a memo, where a tractor was found to be defective and the manufacturer and dealer were to refund the price of the tractor or replace the defective tractor. In this case [2001] 1 CLT 262/[2000] 2 CPJ 335 “Shiv Balak Singh vs. Manager, Escorts Tractor Limited”, the complainant filed bills of repair and also the tractor was handed over to authorized service station.

13.              In the present complaint, the complainant has not filed any bills of repair to prove that the tractor was defective nor did he take the tractor to the authorized service station for repair. He received notices of seizure and sale from opposite party no. 3 as per the agreement he signed. In this circumstance the above referred judgment is not applicable to the present case.

14.              Therefore in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is clear that there is no deficiency of service against opposite party no. 3 as alleged by the complainant. The complaint against opposite party nos. 1 and 2 is also dismissed. In view of this matter, the complaint is dismissed. The point is answered accordingly against the complainant.

15.              In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Dictated to Stenographer, after transcription and correction, the order is pronounced by us in the open court today, on this the 1^st day of July, 2014.

                   Sd/-                                                           Sd/-

LADY MEMBER                                         PRESIDENT

 

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

                                  WITNESSES EXAMINED

 

For the complainant:                                            For the opposite parties:-

PW. 1 – Chandrappa Bagli,       Agriculture (Affidavit filed).	RW.1 - Ritu Bala W/o Joseph Solomon, Manager Legal authorized vide board resolution of opposite party no. 1.                  (affidavit filed)
	RW.2 - G. Ramesh Babu, Divisional Manager of Opposite party no. 3. (Affidavit filed).

DOCUMENTS MARKED

 

For the complainant:                                                   For the opposite parties:-

 

Ex.A1/dt.30.06.2008 – Payment receipt.	Ex.B1/dt.-Nil-  - Copy of GPA.
Ex.A2/dt. 18.11.2008 – Payment receipt.	Ex.B2/dt.20.04.1989 – Copy of fresh certificate of incorporation.
Ex.A3/dt. 04.10.2011 – Notice from opposite party no. 3 to complainant.	Ex.B3/dt.-nil- Copy of application for vehicle loan.
Ex.A4/dt.-nil-     - Brochure of the tractor.	Ex.B4/dt.26.03.2008 – Copy of loan cum hypothecation agreement.
Ex.A5/dt.26.12.2011 – Copy of reply notice.	Ex.B5/dt.26.03.2008 – copy of demand promissory note.
Ex.A6/dt.09.01.2012 – Notice from opposite party no. 3 to complainant.	Ex.B6/dt. –nil – Copy of schedule –I.
	Ex.B7/dt.15.02.2011 – Copy of notice to complainant and guarantor.
	Ex.B8/dt.21.02.2011 – Copy of postal registration slip.
	Ex.B9/dt. nil – Copy of postal acknowledgement.
	Ex.B10/dt.14.02.2014 – Statement of accounts.
	Ex.B11/dt.24.12.2011 – Copy of calculation memo.
	Ex.B12/dt.18.03.2008 – Affidavit/ Declaration.
	Ex.B13/dt.10.02.2009 – Copy of seizure notice.
	Ex.B14/dt.- nil- Postal cover.
	Ex.B15/dt.26.03.2008 – Copy of seizure notice.
	Ex.B16/dt.- Nil- Post card.
	Ex.B17/dt.26.03.2008 –Copy of sale notice.
	Ex.B18/dt.-nil- - Post card.
	Ex.B19/dt.04.10.2011 – Copy of notice.
	Ex.B20 to B22/-26.03.2008 – Agreement signed by the complainant.
	Ex.B23/dt.26.03.2008 – Undertaking by borrower.

 

                    Sd/-                                                           Sd/-

            LADY MEMBER                                          PRESIDENT

Copy to

1. The Complainant
2. The opp.parties
3. Spare copy