Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao,  President:-

          The complainant filed this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking a direction to the opposite party issue correct account particulars from the date of loan till filing the complaint; Payment of Rs.10,000/- each towards mental agony and compensation; and Rs.5,000/-   towards legal expenses.

2.   In brief averments of the complaint are these:

The complainant availed a loan of Rs.2,20,000/- from the opposite party agreeing to repay the said amount together with interest @18.5% p.a., payable in equated monthly installments @3,377/-.   The complainant also availed loan of Rs.80,000/- on 27-09-06 agreeing to repay the said amount together with interest @12.5% p.a., payable in monthly installments @1171/-.   The complainant paid Rs.2,02,450/- by way of installments.   The complainant made oral demands for supply of account copy enabling him to pay the remaining amount.   On 27-06-13 the opposite party demanded the complainant to pay Rs.1,96,082/- in respect of two loans.   The complainant according to his calculation is due in a sum of Rs.80,000/- as on 26-06-13.   The opposite party charged interest excluding payments made by the complainant from time to time.   The opposite party issued a notice u/s 13(2) of the Securitization and Re-construction of Financial assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.   The complainant is even now intending to discharge loan amount of Rs.80,000/-.   The complainant exhausted all alternative remedies.  Non furnishing of account copy by the opposite party amounted to deficiency of service.  

3.    The contention of the opposite party in nutshell is hereunder:

          The complainant agreed to pay over due or penal interest in case of delayed payments.  From the beginning itself, the complainant is a defaulter in payment of installments regularly.   The opposite party on 31-01-13 exercised its remedy under SARFAESI ACT, 2002 and issued notice.   The complainant received the same and did not respond.  The opposite party filed Crl.Mp.No.79/13 on the file of Prl. Asst. Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Guntur u/s’s 14(1) and (2) of the SARFAESI ACT and the said court appointed an advocate commissioner, the complainant paid Rs.49,800/- on 25-06-13 and Rs.25,000/- on 29-06-13 under both loan accounts and pleaded that he will update his loan account by paying all the amounts due within a week.   The complainant removed some pages in the statement of account supplied to him and made all false allegations against the opposite party.   The complainant did not approach the Forum with clean hands and suppressed the material facts.    Rest of the allegations contra mentioned in the complaint are all false and are created by the complainant to suit his case.   The complaint therefore be dismissed.

4.  Exs.A-1 to A-9 on behalf of complainant and Exs.B-1 to B-7 on behalf of the opposite party were marked.

5.   Now the points that arose consideration in this case are these:

1. Whether the opposite party committed deficiency of service?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to Rs.10,000/- as compensation?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to Rs.5,000/- towards legal expenses?
5. To what relief?

6.    Admitted facts in this case are these:

          a.  The complainant borrowed Rs.2,20,000/- on 22-09-04 and agreed                            to pay interest @18.5% p.a., and in equated monthly                                      installments of Rs.3,377/-.

          b.  The complainant borrowed another sum of Rs.80,000/- on

                   27-09-06 and agreed to pay interest @12.5% p.a.,

                   and in equated monthly installments of Rs.1171/-.

          c. The opposite party issued notice under SARFAESI ACT to the                                       complainant (Ex.A-9).

          d.  The complainant made certain payments to the opposite party                          (Ex.A-1 to A-6).

1. The complainant has not discharged the two loans. 

7.  POINT No.1:-   It is not the case of the complainant that he issued a written notice to the opposite party seeking particulars of loan and its recovery.   The complainant in para III (2) of his complaint mentioned that he made several requests to the opposite party for supply of detailed account copy.   The opposite party contended that the complainant removed some papers from the statement of account furnished to him and filed this case with untrue allegations.  Exs.A-6 and A-7 do not represent entire particulars of complainant’s account. 

8.      The complainant filed this complaint on 19-07-13 after the opposite party issuing Ex.A-9 notice under SARFAESI ACT on 31-01-13 showing the outstanding EMI amount, additional interest on EMI outstanding on both the loans.  Under those circumstances, the contention of the complainant that the opposite party did not issue account copies does not hold good.                      Even after Ex.A-9 notice the complainant did not issue any written notice asking the details in his desired manner.  Ex.A-9 belied the contention of the complainant and corroborated the contention of the opposite party.   The opposite party for the reasons best known to it did not file account copies along with version.  On the other hand,  the opposite party filed detailed statement of accounts pertaining to both loans (Exs.B-6 and B-7) before this Forum subsequently.   In the absence of any written notice from the complainant after Ex.A-9 the contention of the complainant about the opposite party withholding account copies did not inspire any confidence in the minds of the Forum.  The complainant cannot allege deficiency of service after the opposite party furnishing accounts before this Forum (Exs.B-6 and B-7).   For want of written notice from the complainant that too after Ex.A-9 we cannot hold the opposite party committed deficiency of service.  We therefore answer this point against the complainant.

9.  POINTS 2 to 4:-   In view of our findings on point 1, the complainant is not entitled to claim any damages under any count as claimed by him.   We therefore answer these points also against the complainant. 

10.  POINT No.5:-   In view of above findings, in the result the complaint is dismissed without costs.                  

Typed to my dictation by Junior Steno, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 24^th day of March, 2014.

MEMBER                                                                       PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite party:  

        PRESIDENT

NB:   The parties are required to collect the extra sets within a month after receipt of this order either personally or through their advocate as otherwise the extra sets shall be weeded out.