Date of Filing ::09-02-2010
Date of Disposal ::17-08-2015
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM::ONGOLE
Monday, this the 17th day of August, 2015
PRESENT: Sri P.V. Krishna Murthy, B.A.,B.L., President
Sri K. UMAMAHESWARA RAO, M.A.,B.L., Member
C.C.No.32/2010
Mannam Venkateswarlu,
son of China Kotaiah,
aged about 45 years,
Hindu, employee,
resident of Lakshmipuram Village,
Chimakurthy Mandal,
Prakasam District. … Complainant
Vs.
The Branch Manager,
Sriram City Union Finance Limited,
Ongole, Prakasam District. … Opposite Party
This complaint under section-12 of consumer protection Act, 1986, coming on 06-08-2015 before us for hearing in the presence of Sri Paturi Vengaiah, advocate for complainant and Sri Danduri Venkateswarlu, advocate for opposite party, and having stood over for consideration till this day and this Forum made the following:
ORDER
(ORDER BY Sri P.V. KRISHNA MURTHY, PRESIDENT)
1. The brief averments of the complaint are as follows:
The complainant purchased motorcycle after availing finance from the opposite party. The complainant discharged the loan. The agreement was cancelled. The other documents were destroyed before the complainant. The opposite party did not issue letter of clearance to be filed before the R.T.O., in spite of requests of the complainant. The opposite party was postponing giving such letter in spite of requests of the complainant for more than three years. A person styling as an authorized signatory of the opposite party, took away the vehicle of the complainant with the help of unknown persons in a highhanded manner. There was an exchange of legal notices between the parties. The opposite party gave propaganda stating that the vehicle was seized due to non-payment of loan. The complainant lost his reputation. Hence, the complaint for handing over the vehicle, AP27M 2371 with costs and compensation.
2. The brief averments of the counter of opposite party are as follows:-
The complaint is not maintainable. The allegations made in the complaint are not correct. The complainant availed a loan for purchase of a two wheeler, AP 27M 2371. The opposite party paid the entire amount to the dealer for delivery of the vehicle. The complainant executed required documents like loan application, agreement, promissory note, delivery certificate and others. The complainant issued postdated cheques commencing from 07-09-2006 to 07-08-2008 also. The complainant paid only one installment and defaulted. The opposite party seized the vehicle on 27-12-2009 from the son of the complainant as per the agreement. A pre-sale notice was issued to the complainant on 12-01-2010. The complainant did not pay. The complainant without discharging the loan got issued a legal notice with false allegations. The complaint is filed with untenable allegations. There is no deficiency of service. Hence, the complaint may be dismissed.
3. Now the point for consideration is “Whether the opposite parties committed a deficiency of service?”
4. The complainant filed his affidavit and marked Exs.A1 to A6. On behalf of the opposite party, the branch manager filed his affidavit. Exs.B1 to B9 were marked on behalf of the opposite party.
5. POINT:- The complainant is seeking the restoration of the vehicle along with huge compensation and costs. The complainant purchased the two wheeler under finance provided by the opposite party. The complainant claimed to have discharged the entire loan amount. The complainant also pleaded that the relevant documents executed by him at the time of availing loan, were destroyed by the opposite party in his presence. The complainant is pleading discharge of the loan. The law is settled on the point. The person pleading discharge has to establish the same. The complainant has not filed any material to substantiate the above plea. Exs.A1 and A2 are the legal notice and reply notice respectively. Ex.A3 is another reply notice from the complainant. Ex.A4 is the pre-sale notice issued by the opposite party to the complainant (as pleaded in para-3 of the counter). Ex.A5 is another legal notice, which was received by the opposite party under Ex.A6. None of the above documents establish the claimed discharge. Therefore, the plea of the opposite party that the loan is subsisting, has to be accepted.
6. The complainant contended that the vehicle was taken from his custody in a high handed manner. Ex.B2 is the loan agreement executed by the complainant. Clause-10 of the agreement deals with the consequences of default. Clause-10.1.c empowers the borrower to confiscate the vehicle in the event of default in payment of loan installments. The said clause therefore is binding on the complainant and the borrower. The complainant failed to establish regular payments of installments and discharge of the loan. The opposite party in the legal notice claimed default in payment of the loan installments. Under the circumstances of the case, the plea of the opposite party has to be accepted. The opposite party acted within the rights conferred on it by law. Hence, there is no deficiency of service. The complainant filed this complaint suppressing material facts. He setup frivolous and unfair pleas. The complaint is therefore frivolous and vexatious in nature. The opposite party is made to fight a frivolous and vexatious complaint without any fault. Therefore, the complainant must be made to pay costs, as envisaged under section-26 of the C.P.Act. Under the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs.4,000/- appears to be sufficient. Accordingly, the point is held against the complainant and his complaint is dismissed, ordering him to pay Rs.4,000/- to the opposite party.
7. In the result, the complaint is dismissed, ordering the complainant to pay Rs.4,000/- (rupees four thousand only) to the opposite party for lodging a frivolous and vexatious complaint.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him and corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum this the 17th day of August, 2015.
Sd/-xxxx sd/-xxxx
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED FOR COMPLAINANT:
P.W.1 25-04-2013 Mannam Venkateswarlu, son of China Kotaiah,
aged about 45 years, Hindu, employee,
resident of Lakshmipuram Village, Chimakurthy Mandal,
Prakasam District.
WITNESS EXAMINED FOR OPPOSITE PARTY:
R.W.1 06-09-2010 Yandrapalli Narendra, son of Adiramulu, Hindu, aged 28
years, resident of ongole.
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR COMPLAINANT:
Ex.A1 31-12-2009 Office copy of legal notice to the opposite party.
Ex.A2 02-01-2010 Office copy of reply notice to the complainant.
Ex.A3 12-01-2010 Office copy of reply notice to the opposite party.
Ex.A4 copy of pre-sale notice to the complainant.
Ex.A5 22-01-2010 Office copy of reply notice to the opposite party.
Ex.A6 Postal acknowledgment.
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR OPPOISTE PARTY:
Ex.B1 Original loan application of complainant.
Ex.B2 Loan cum hypothecation agreement with schedule.
Ex.B3 12-08-2006 Promissory note executed by complainant in favour of
opposite party.
E.B4 Receipt with the signature of complainant.
Ex.B5 12-08-2006 Photostat copy of delivery note.
Ex.B6 12-08-2006 Photostat copy of sale certificate.
Ex.B7 Photostat copy of temporary certificate of registration.
Ex.B8 Photostat copy of identity card.
Ex.B9 Photostat copy of hirer ledger details of complainant.
sd/-xxx
PRESIDENT
Copies to:
1) The complainant.
2) The opposite party.
Free copy was issued in dis.no. /date:
//free copy/
