D.O.F:28/06/2021
D.O.O:10/08/2023
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC.103/2021
Dated this, the 10th day of August 2023
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Devikiran, aged 25 years
S/o Srinivas (Chandravathi)
Re/at No. 4-64, Kadapu Road, Pavanje Temple : Complainant
Heleangady, Mangalore – 574146
(Advocate: Navya Sree)
And
- The Branch Manager
M/s Hinduja Leyland Finance
No. 21, 3rd Floor, Manasa Tower
M G Road, Near PVS Circle
Kadialbail, Mangalore – 575003
- M/s Hinduja Leyland Finance
No.2, A Developed Industrial Estate
Gundy, Chennai, Tamil Nadu - 600032
(Advocate: Shrikanta Shetty K. for OP 1 &2) : Opposite Parties
ORDER
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
Brief facts of the case: The complainant has purchased a lorry on self-employment, with finance of Rs.31,37,015/- from opposite party as per contract dated 01/03/2018. He agreed to repay Rs.40,96,942/- in 58 monthly instalments from 07/05/2019 and ends on 07/02/2024. Complainant paid Rs.6,06,172/- as on 10/10/2019 part payments were made, but opposite party did not issued receipts. Opposite party visited complaint’s house on 16/04/2021 and demanded Rs.5,00,000/- to avoid seizure of the vehicle. Vehicle is covered by valid permit. He demanded loan ledger extract but opposite party refused. Complainant prays to direct opposite party to collect the loan instalments as per terms of policy, to direct opposite party to issue receipts for payment and issue statement as per policy terms, compensation and cost of litigation.
Opposite party filed its written version. Opposite party admitted providing finance to the vehicle. Other allegations are denied. Allegation of non-receipt for payments is also denied. Complainant is residing in Mangalore, vehicle is registered in Mangalore, subject transaction is in Mangalore. Then no territorial Jurisdiction to try this case, thus complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Now short questions for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service of opposite party is demanding money as per contract and on non-payment taking legal measures to recover and due there on? If so far what reliefs?
Complainant filed chief affidavit print out of loan statement and R.C. copy is marked as an Exhibit A1 and A2.
There is no reason as to why opposite party did not cross examined complainant. But still no case for consideration is pleaded or proved by complainant. No definite case for complainant or to why opposite party is not entitled is recover the amount due under an admitted valid contract. In any event there is no valid justifiable reason or cause of action for complainant. Further entire transaction took place in Mangalore, complainant residing in Mangalore and complainant takes jurisdiction.
Complaint in cases like this no case of suffer mental tension, agony and much more there is no case of Deficiency in service. Thus considering all aspects complaint is devoid of any merits and is dismissed.
Thus the result complaint dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1 – Bill
A2 – Certificate of Registration
A3 – Seizure Notice
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
JJ/
