The Branch Manager, Shriram Investment Ltd., Raichur V/S Yamunappa S/o. Yenkappa, Raichur - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Raichur

CC/10/68

Yamunappa S/o. Yenkappa, Raichur - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, Shriram Investment Ltd., Raichur - Opp.Party(s)

Sri. T.M. Swamy

29 Dec 2010

ORDER

Dist. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sath Kacheri, Raichur.
Dist. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sath Kacheri, Raichur.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/10/68

Yamunappa S/o. Yenkappa, Raichur						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
The Branch Manager, Shriram Investment Ltd., Raichur The Branch Manager, Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd., Raichur						...........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 one Yamuappa against the opposite Sriram Investment Limited U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct it to return the Tractor and Trailer bearing No. KA-36/TA- 3633 & 3634 in good condition or alternative to pay market value of it, prevailing in the month of August-2007, to pay compensation amount of Rs. 10,000/- with cost and other reliefs as deems fit to the circumstances of this case. 2. The brief facts of the complainants case are that, he purchased Tractor and Trailer bearing No. KA-36/TA- 3633 & 3634 with financial assistance of opposite Sriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., He paid installment to opposite towards the loan. In the month of August-07 when the complainant was about to pay second installment opposite officers came to his village and convinced him to hand over Tractor and Trailer by stating that, finance company is paying an amount of Rs. 12,000/- per month by deducting the salary of Rs. 2000/- towards driver till payment of the loan amount. The complainant though not at all ready but ultimately agreed for such term, at the instance of opposite and opposite took possession of Tractor and Trailer. Thereafter he made several requests to opposite to furnish the details of the transaction of the loan and to return his vehicle. But opposite not returned vehicle. On 11-07-08 he received a letter from opposite by stating that the amount of Rs. 1,70,000/- should be paid within (7) days, other wise further legal action will be taken for disposal of the vehicle. Since date of taking possession of the vehicle there was balance amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- but notice dt. 07-07-08 which was received on 11-07-08 by him suggesting to pay excess amount. Hence he requested the opposites to return the vehicle end to furnish the accounts but they not considered his requests, accordingly he filed this complaint against opposites for the reliefs as prayed in it. 3. The opposite Nos. 1 & 2 appeared in this case through its Advocate, filed joint written version by admitting the loan borrowed by the complainant and execution of loan cum hypothecation agreement. According to it complainant failed to pay regular installments, accordingly the tractor bearing No. KA-36/TA- 3633 was seized under inventory as per the terms and conditions of the loan cum hypothecation agreement. Thereafter also complainant failed to pay the balance amount, accordingly the said tractor was sold in public auction and the consideration amount was given credit to the loan account of the complainant. Earlier complainant filed similar complaint against opposites in respect of the same matter it was got dismissed by him, as such this complaint is not maintainable there was no deficiency in its service, accordingly it prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grounds. 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 the Tractor and Trailer bearing No. KA-36/TA-3633 & 3634 with financial assistance of opposite finance limited and executed loan cum hypothecation agreement, thereafter he handed over the said Tractor and Trailer on the promise of opposites to pay an amount of Rs. 12,000/- per month and it will be adjusted to his loan account but opposite not adjusted the said amount to his loan account and it not furnished the details of the loan account on demand and all of a sudden it issued a sale notice dt. 07-07-08 and thereby opposite found guilty under deficiency in its serivces.? 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 Negative. (2) In Negative. (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 and affidavit-evidence of one witness was filed, he was noted as PW-2. The documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-4 are marked. On the other hand affidavit-evidence of Senior Manager (Legal) is filed, he was noted as RW-1. The documents at Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-20 are marked. 7. The entire records in CC.No. 45/08 on the file of this Forum was summoned and included in this case as per the request of complainant. 8. In view of the pleadings of the parties and their respective evidences, some of the following facts are undisputed facts in between the parties which are:- 1. It is undisputed fact that, complainant purchased the Tractor and Trailer bearing No. KA-36/TA-3634 with financial assistance of opposite finance company ltd., and executed loan cum hypothecation agreement dt. 01-07-06. 2. It is further undisputed fact that, in the month of August-2007 opposite finance limited took the possession of the tractor in the village of complainant with his consent. 3. It is further undisputed fact that, opposite finance limited sold the tractor in auction to third party by issuing sale notice to the complainant dt. 07-07-08. 4. It is further undisputed fact that, the present complainant had filed one complaint before this Forum against the same opposite in respect of the said same loan by alleging the illegal seizure of the vehicle by opposite bearing CC.No. 45/08 on 22-07-08. 5. It is further undisputed fact that, the said complaint bearing CC.No. 45/08 was got dismissed by the complainant as prayed in his memo as he is not going to press the complaint with a liberty to file fresh complaint on the same cause of action vide order dt. 26-12-08. 6. It is further undisputed fact that, the complainant shown the cause of action to file previous complaint bearing CC.No. 45/08 as 11-07-08 which was a date of receipt of sale notice received by him from the opposite. 9. With these undisputed facts in between the parties. Now we have to case of the parties as contended before us this case. 10. The first contention that was canvassed before us by the learned advocate for complainant is that, opposite finance company limited has not followed legal procedures at the time of seizure of the tractor and trailer, it was illegal seizure and thereby opposite found guilty under deficiency in its service. 11. On the other hand, the learned advocate for opposites submits that, finance company has seized only a tractor bearing No. KA-36/TA-3633 and not trailer, complaint mis appropriated the trailer for which it filed private complaint before the competent court. The complainant not paid any amount towards loan hence opposite it issued sale notice dt. 07-07-08 and thereafter the tractor was seized under inventory as per the terms and conditions of the loan cum hypothecation agreement executed by the complainant and it was sold out. 12. In support of the complainant, the learned advocate has relied on the following rulings: 1) III (2007) CPJ 161 (NC) CITI Corp. Finance Limited V/s. S. Vijayalakshmi. 2) III (2010) CPJ 384 (NC) Magmafin Corp. Ltd., V/s. Ahok Kumar Gupta. 13. On the other hand the learned advocate for opposites has relied on the following rulings. 1. 2008 ((3) CPR 334 (NC) Smt. Suresta Sharma & Ors V/s. Shri Piar Chand (Hony Capt.) 2. I (2008) CPJ 121 (NC) Rajeshwari Prasad V/s. BCL Financial Services Ltd., 3. II (2010) CPJ 45 (NC) Parameswari V/s. V.S.T. Service Station & Ors. 4. ILR 1998 KAR SN.No. 105 5. II (2005) CPJ 491 Ashoka Leyland Finance Ltd., V/s. Himanshu.S. Thumar. 6. III 1992 (I) CPR 456 M.V. Krishna Reddy V/s. Ahdnra Bank Gudur. 7. 1995 (3) CPR 293 The Manager, St. Marys Hire Purchase (Pvt) Ltd., V/s. N.A. Jose. 8. 2004 (2) CPR 584 K.A. Murugesan V/s. Jaurilal Bafna & Anr. 9. Copy in Appeal No. 1847/2005. 10. Appeal No. 2013/2006. 11. Appeal No. 2013/2006.Copy in Appeal No. 2322/2007 12. 2006 (2) CPR 132 M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd., & Ors. V/s. Mohanlal Markandey. 13. 2006 (2) CPR 440 Surendra Kumar Agarwal V/s. Telco Finance Ltd., & Anr. 14. The principles of the rulings referred by the learned advocate for complainant which are noted at Sl.No. 1 & 2 above, are in respect of forceful seizure of the vehicle by the financier. The practice of hiring muscleman as recovery agents deprecated, needs to be discouraged. 15. The principles of the said ruling shown at Sl.No. 1 was referred by the Honble National Commission in a ruling referred at Sl.No.2. 16. In the light of the above said principles. Now we have to see the facts pleaded by the complainant in Para-4 of this complaint, as well as the facts pleaded in CC.No. 45/08, it is clear cut case of the complainant that, in the month of August-2007 opposite officers came to his native place Diddigi and assured to pay an amount of Rs. 12,000/- per month excluding his salary of the driver of the tractor, therefore he handed over the said tractor and trailer to the opposites in presence of villagers even though he may not having interest to hand over the vehicle, however by trusting the opposites, he handed over the tractor to the custody of opposite in the month of August-2007. When such being the case now how the complainant is contending that, the said vehicle was seized with force or illegal means by using muscleman. On the other hand the hypothecation agreement which is at Ex.R-1 is not in dispute. Conditions shown at Article 3.1, the complainant shall pay punctually and regularly the installments of the said loan. Article 5.1 the condition in the event of default. Further terms and conditions of the Article 6.1 clause (ii) and clause (iii) and other clauses clearly discloses the rights to be executed by opposite in the event of default. 17. Keeping in view of the above said contentions of both parties and terms and conditions of Ex.R-1, we are not agreeing with the submissions made by the learned advocate for complainant that vehicle was forcibly seized or it was seized by illegal means by using muscleman, as such the facts and circumstances discussed by their lordships of the rulings referred above are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case of complainant. So the relevant rulings referred above on which opposites relied are clearly establishes the rights of seizure of vehicle by the opposite in case of default. Admittedly inventoryprepared and tractor was seized by the opposite and sale notice was issued. Hence we have rejected the contention of the complainant that the tractor was seized by illegal means. 18. The second contention of the complainant is that, the complaint filed by the complainant bearing CC.No. 45/08 was got dismissed vide order dt. 26-12-08 with liberty to file fresh complaint, as such the cause of action arose to him is of continuing one and thereby this complaint is within the limitation of two years from the date of cause of action. The leaned advocated for opposite contended that, the present complaint is barred by limitation as it is beyond the period of two years from the date of cause of action. No application U/sec. 24(A)(2) was filed, accordingly he prayed for to dismiss the complaint on this ground also. 19. Keeping in view of the submissions made on both sides, we have referred the facts pleaded in complaint bearing CC.No. 45/08. This complaint was filed by the complainant more or less on similar grounds as contended in the present complaint it was filed on 22-07-08 by virtue of sale notice dt. 07-07-08 which was received by him on 11-07-08. No doubt this Forum was dismissed the said complaint has not pressed with liberty to file fresh complaint on the said cause of action but present complaint was filed by him on 30-08-10, cause of action shown by him on 11-07-08 sale notice dt. 07-07-08 and issuance of arbitration notice dt. 03-04-10, we are of the view that, all these dates are not accruing cause of action to the complainant for to file this complaint for the reasons that, as per his case, he handed over the possession of the tractor in the month of August-2007. But he alleging that it was illegal seizure and filed this complaint dt. 30-08-10 is clearly barred by limitation of two years from the month of August-2007 cause of action was not on the dates referred by him in Para-8 of the complaint, as such we are of the view that, this complaint is barred by limitation. The order dt. 26-12-08 in CC.No. 45/08 is not enlarging the period of limitation of two years from the month of August-2007 even though he was given liberty to file fresh complaint it does not mean to say that, he was given a liberty to file fresh complaint after two years from the date of cause of action. Admittedly this complaint was not filed within two years from the month of August-2007. Hence it is clearly barred by limitation. No application is filed U/sec. 24(A)(2) of C.P. Act for to condone the delay with sufficient cause. Hence this complaint is barred by limitation. 19. Another contention that was raised before us by the learned advocate for complainant is that, fresh cause of action arose to the complainant to file this complaint only after issuance of arbitration notice dt. 03-04-10 after initiating arbitration proceedings is also not correct. The arbitration proceedings initiated by the opposites is as per the terms and conditions of the loan cum hypothecation agreement. The reliefs to be given under C.P. Act is for deficiency in service, we are not deciding any other facts as contemplated under Arbitration Act, as such the arbitration notice dt. 03-04-10 cannot be a starting point of limitation for the complainant to file this complaint or there is contending cause of action to file this complaint, as such on this count also this complaint is barred by limitation. 20. As regards to other aspects of the case as contended by the learned advocate for opposite that, this complaint involves complicated and complex questions of law and facts, as such this Forum cannot decide those complicated and complex questions of law and facts in summary proceedings accordingly direction be given to the complainant to approach the Civil Court for appropriate remedy. 21. In pursuance of this submission the learned advocate for opposite relied on the ruling reported in: I (2008) CPJ 121 (NC) Rajeshwari Prasad V/s. BCL Financial Services Ltd., we have gone through the principles of the ruling referred above and also pleadings of the parties and we are of the opinion that, there are no such complicated and complex questions of law and facts involved in this case, we can decide the case of complainant on the available material placed before us by way of summary procedure, as such this contention of the opposite is rejected. 22. Much more was submitted before us by the learned advocate for complainant that PW-2 was not cross-examined or no interrogatories filed by the opposite to test the trustworthiness of PW-2. Hence the evidence of PW-2 is sufficient to say that, the seizure of the vehicle was illegal. 23. We are not agreeing with this submission of the learned advocate for complainant for the reasons as shown by himself, in Para-4 of the complaint. The affidavit-evidence of PW-2 is an improvement version to fill up the lacuna of the case of complainant, accordingly we have rejected the evidence of PW-2. 24. The cumulative effect of all the facts and circumstances stated above leads to our conclusion that complainant has not proved the alleged negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposites, accordingly we not considered other irrelevant facts and circumstances and thereby we answered Point No-1 accordingly. 25. In view of our findings on Point No- 1, the complainant is not entitled for any of reliefs as prayed in his complaint, accordingly we answered Point No- 1 & 2 in negative. POINT NO.3:- 26. In view of our finding on Point Nos- 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order: ORDER The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed. Intimate the parties accordingly. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 29-12-10) 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 one Yamuappa against the opposite Sriram Investment Limited U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct it to return the Tractor and Trailer bearing No. KA-36/TA- 3633 & 3634 in good condition or alternative to pay market value of it, prevailing in the month of August-2007, to pay compensation amount of Rs. 10,000/- with cost and other reliefs as deems fit to the circumstances of this case. 2. The brief facts of the complainants case are that, he purchased Tractor and Trailer bearing No. KA-36/TA- 3633 & 3634 with financial assistance of opposite Sriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., He paid installment to opposite towards the loan. In the month of August-07 when the complainant was about to pay second installment opposite officers came to his village and convinced him to hand over Tractor and Trailer by stating that, finance company is paying an amount of Rs. 12,000/- per month by deducting the salary of Rs. 2000/- towards driver till payment of the loan amount. The complainant though not at all ready but ultimately agreed for such term, at the instance of opposite and opposite took possession of Tractor and Trailer. Thereafter he made several requests to opposite to furnish the details of the transaction of the loan and to return his vehicle. But opposite not returned vehicle. On 11-07-08 he received a letter from opposite by stating that the amount of Rs. 1,70,000/- should be paid within (7) days, other wise further legal action will be taken for disposal of the vehicle. Since date of taking possession of the vehicle there was balance amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- but notice dt. 07-07-08 which was received on 11-07-08 by him suggesting to pay excess amount. Hence he requested the opposites to return the vehicle end to furnish the accounts but they not considered his requests, accordingly he filed this complaint against opposites for the reliefs as prayed in it. 3. The opposite Nos. 1 & 2 appeared in this case through its Advocate, filed joint written version by admitting the loan borrowed by the complainant and execution of loan cum hypothecation agreement. According to it complainant failed to pay regular installments, accordingly the tractor bearing No. KA-36/TA- 3633 was seized under inventory as per the terms and conditions of the loan cum hypothecation agreement. Thereafter also complainant failed to pay the balance amount, accordingly the said tractor was sold in public auction and the consideration amount was given credit to the loan account of the complainant. Earlier complainant filed similar complaint against opposites in respect of the same matter it was got dismissed by him, as such this complaint is not maintainable there was no deficiency in its service, accordingly it prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grounds. 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 the Tractor and Trailer bearing No. KA-36/TA-3633 & 3634 with financial assistance of opposite finance limited and executed loan cum hypothecation agreement, thereafter he handed over the said Tractor and Trailer on the promise of opposites to pay an amount of Rs. 12,000/- per month and it will be adjusted to his loan account but opposite not adjusted the said amount to his loan account and it not furnished the details of the loan account on demand and all of a sudden it issued a sale notice dt. 07-07-08 and thereby opposite found guilty under deficiency in its serivces.? 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 Negative. (2) In Negative. (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 and affidavit-evidence of one witness was filed, he was noted as PW-2. The documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-4 are marked. On the other hand affidavit-evidence of Senior Manager (Legal) is filed, he was noted as RW-1. The documents at Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-20 are marked. 7. The entire records in CC.No. 45/08 on the file of this Forum was summoned and included in this case as per the request of complainant. 8. In view of the pleadings of the parties and their respective evidences, some of the following facts are undisputed facts in between the parties which are:- 1. It is undisputed fact that, complainant purchased the Tractor and Trailer bearing No. KA-36/TA-3634 with financial assistance of opposite finance company ltd., and executed loan cum hypothecation agreement dt. 01-07-06. 2. It is further undisputed fact that, in the month of August-2007 opposite finance limited took the possession of the tractor in the village of complainant with his consent. 3. It is further undisputed fact that, opposite finance limited sold the tractor in auction to third party by issuing sale notice to the complainant dt. 07-07-08. 4. It is further undisputed fact that, the present complainant had filed one complaint before this Forum against the same opposite in respect of the said same loan by alleging the illegal seizure of the vehicle by opposite bearing CC.No. 45/08 on 22-07-08. 5. It is further undisputed fact that, the said complaint bearing CC.No. 45/08 was got dismissed by the complainant as prayed in his memo as he is not going to press the complaint with a liberty to file fresh complaint on the same cause of action vide order dt. 26-12-08. 6. It is further undisputed fact that, the complainant shown the cause of action to file previous complaint bearing CC.No. 45/08 as 11-07-08 which was a date of receipt of sale notice received by him from the opposite. 9. With these undisputed facts in between the parties. Now we have to case of the parties as contended before us this case. 10. The first contention that was canvassed before us by the learned advocate for complainant is that, opposite finance company limited has not followed legal procedures at the time of seizure of the tractor and trailer, it was illegal seizure and thereby opposite found guilty under deficiency in its service. 11. On the other hand, the learned advocate for opposites submits that, finance company has seized only a tractor bearing No. KA-36/TA-3633 and not trailer, complaint mis appropriated the trailer for which it filed private complaint before the competent court. The complainant not paid any amount towards loan hence opposite it issued sale notice dt. 07-07-08 and thereafter the tractor was seized under inventory as per the terms and conditions of the loan cum hypothecation agreement executed by the complainant and it was sold out. 12. In support of the complainant, the learned advocate has relied on the following rulings: 1) III (2007) CPJ 161 (NC) CITI Corp. Finance Limited V/s. S. Vijayalakshmi. 2) III (2010) CPJ 384 (NC) Magmafin Corp. Ltd., V/s. Ahok Kumar Gupta. 13. On the other hand the learned advocate for opposites has relied on the following rulings. 1. 2008 ((3) CPR 334 (NC) Smt. Suresta Sharma & Ors V/s. Shri Piar Chand (Hony Capt.) 2. I (2008) CPJ 121 (NC) Rajeshwari Prasad V/s. BCL Financial Services Ltd., 3. II (2010) CPJ 45 (NC) Parameswari V/s. V.S.T. Service Station & Ors. 4. ILR 1998 KAR SN.No. 105 5. II (2005) CPJ 491 Ashoka Leyland Finance Ltd., V/s. Himanshu.S. Thumar. 6. III 1992 (I) CPR 456 M.V. Krishna Reddy V/s. Ahdnra Bank Gudur. 7. 1995 (3) CPR 293 The Manager, St. Marys Hire Purchase (Pvt) Ltd., V/s. N.A. Jose. 8. 2004 (2) CPR 584 K.A. Murugesan V/s. Jaurilal Bafna & Anr. 9. Copy in Appeal No. 1847/2005. 10. Appeal No. 2013/2006. 11. Appeal No. 2013/2006.Copy in Appeal No. 2322/2007 12. 2006 (2) CPR 132 M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd., & Ors. V/s. Mohanlal Markandey. 13. 2006 (2) CPR 440 Surendra Kumar Agarwal V/s. Telco Finance Ltd., & Anr. 14. The principles of the rulings referred by the learned advocate for complainant which are noted at Sl.No. 1 & 2 above, are in respect of forceful seizure of the vehicle by the financier. The practice of hiring muscleman as recovery agents deprecated, needs to be discouraged. 15. The principles of the said ruling shown at Sl.No. 1 was referred by the Honble National Commission in a ruling referred at Sl.No.2. 16. In the light of the above said principles. Now we have to see the facts pleaded by the complainant in Para-4 of this complaint, as well as the facts pleaded in CC.No. 45/08, it is clear cut case of the complainant that, in the month of August-2007 opposite officers came to his native place Diddigi and assured to pay an amount of Rs. 12,000/- per month excluding his salary of the driver of the tractor, therefore he handed over the said tractor and trailer to the opposites in presence of villagers even though he may not having interest to hand over the vehicle, however by trusting the opposites, he handed over the tractor to the custody of opposite in the month of August-2007. When such being the case now how the complainant is contending that, the said vehicle was seized with force or illegal means by using muscleman. On the other hand the hypothecation agreement which is at Ex.R-1 is not in dispute. Conditions shown at Article 3.1, the complainant shall pay punctually and regularly the installments of the said loan. Article 5.1 the condition in the event of default. Further terms and conditions of the Article 6.1 clause (ii) and clause (iii) and other clauses clearly discloses the rights to be executed by opposite in the event of default. 17. Keeping in view of the above said contentions of both parties and terms and conditions of Ex.R-1, we are not agreeing with the submissions made by the learned advocate for complainant that vehicle was forcibly seized or it was seized by illegal means by using muscleman, as such the facts and circumstances discussed by their lordships of the rulings referred above are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case of complainant. So the relevant rulings referred above on which opposites relied are clearly establishes the rights of seizure of vehicle by the opposite in case of default. Admittedly inventoryprepared and tractor was seized by the opposite and sale notice was issued. Hence we have rejected the contention of the complainant that the tractor was seized by illegal means. 18. The second contention of the complainant is that, the complaint filed by the complainant bearing CC.No. 45/08 was got dismissed vide order dt. 26-12-08 with liberty to file fresh complaint, as such the cause of action arose to him is of continuing one and thereby this complaint is within the limitation of two years from the date of cause of action. The leaned advocated for opposite contended that, the present complaint is barred by limitation as it is beyond the period of two years from the date of cause of action. No application U/sec. 24(A)(2) was filed, accordingly he prayed for to dismiss the complaint on this ground also. 19. Keeping in view of the submissions made on both sides, we have referred the facts pleaded in complaint bearing CC.No. 45/08. This complaint was filed by the complainant more or less on similar grounds as contended in the present complaint it was filed on 22-07-08 by virtue of sale notice dt. 07-07-08 which was received by him on 11-07-08. No doubt this Forum was dismissed the said complaint has not pressed with liberty to file fresh complaint on the said cause of action but present complaint was filed by him on 30-08-10, cause of action shown by him on 11-07-08 sale notice dt. 07-07-08 and issuance of arbitration notice dt. 03-04-10, we are of the view that, all these dates are not accruing cause of action to the complainant for to file this complaint for the reasons that, as per his case, he handed over the possession of the tractor in the month of August-2007. But he alleging that it was illegal seizure and filed this complaint dt. 30-08-10 is clearly barred by limitation of two years from the month of August-2007 cause of action was not on the dates referred by him in Para-8 of the complaint, as such we are of the view that, this complaint is barred by limitation. The order dt. 26-12-08 in CC.No. 45/08 is not enlarging the period of limitation of two years from the month of August-2007 even though he was given liberty to file fresh complaint it does not mean to say that, he was given a liberty to file fresh complaint after two years from the date of cause of action. Admittedly this complaint was not filed within two years from the month of August-2007. Hence it is clearly barred by limitation. No application is filed U/sec. 24(A)(2) of C.P. Act for to condone the delay with sufficient cause. Hence this complaint is barred by limitation. 19. Another contention that was raised before us by the learned advocate for complainant is that, fresh cause of action arose to the complainant to file this complaint only after issuance of arbitration notice dt. 03-04-10 after initiating arbitration proceedings is also not correct. The arbitration proceedings initiated by the opposites is as per the terms and conditions of the loan cum hypothecation agreement. The reliefs to be given under C.P. Act is for deficiency in service, we are not deciding any other facts as contemplated under Arbitration Act, as such the arbitration notice dt. 03-04-10 cannot be a starting point of limitation for the complainant to file this complaint or there is contending cause of action to file this complaint, as such on this count also this complaint is barred by limitation. 20. As regards to other aspects of the case as contended by the learned advocate for opposite that, this complaint involves complicated and complex questions of law and facts, as such this Forum cannot decide those complicated and complex questions of law and facts in summary proceedings accordingly direction be given to the complainant to approach the Civil Court for appropriate remedy. 21. In pursuance of this submission the learned advocate for opposite relied on the ruling reported in: I (2008) CPJ 121 (NC) Rajeshwari Prasad V/s. BCL Financial Services Ltd., we have gone through the principles of the ruling referred above and also pleadings of the parties and we are of the opinion that, there are no such complicated and complex questions of law and facts involved in this case, we can decide the case of complainant on the available material placed before us by way of summary procedure, as such this contention of the opposite is rejected. 22. Much more was submitted before us by the learned advocate for complainant that PW-2 was not cross-examined or no interrogatories filed by the opposite to test the trustworthiness of PW-2. Hence the evidence of PW-2 is sufficient to say that, the seizure of the vehicle was illegal. 23. We are not agreeing with this submission of the learned advocate for complainant for the reasons as shown by himself, in Para-4 of the complaint. The affidavit-evidence of PW-2 is an improvement version to fill up the lacuna of the case of complainant, accordingly we have rejected the evidence of PW-2. 24. The cumulative effect of all the facts and circumstances stated above leads to our conclusion that complainant has not proved the alleged negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposites, accordingly we not considered other irrelevant facts and circumstances and thereby we answered Point No-1 accordingly. 25. In view of our findings on Point No- 1, the complainant is not entitled for any of reliefs as prayed in his complaint, accordingly we answered Point No- 1 & 2 in negative. POINT NO.3:- 26. In view of our finding on Point Nos- 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order: ORDER The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed. Intimate the parties accordingly. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 29-12-10) Sd/- Sri. Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.