BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM  (Under Consumer Protection Act, 1986)  MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY.
 

 PRESENT: Sri Y. Aravinda Reddy, Spl Judge for SCs & STs (POA)                 Act cum – V Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge / FAC President

               Smt. Meena Ramanathan, B.Com., Lady Member

Wednesday, the 1^st  day of August, 2012

C.C. No. 40 of 2011

Between:

T. Satyagoud S/o Ramagound,

Aged 50 yrs, Occ: Agriculture,

R/o H.No. 2-58, Sanjeevanraopet (V),

Narayanakhed (M), Medak District.                                         ….Complainant

And

1)              The Branch Manager,

Sri Ram Transport Finance Co.Ltd.,

Muddanna Comples, BVB College Road,

Bidar Town, Tq. And District.

(Karnataka State) – 585 401.

2)              The Managing Director,

Sri Ram Transport Finance Co.Ltd.,

Administrative Office, 101-016,

Shiv Chambers Sector-11,

CBD, Belapur- Mumbai.

3]       The Managing Director,

Sri Ram Transport Finance Co.Ltd.,

Regd. Office, Mukambika Complex 123,

Angappa Naickan Street, Chennai – 600 001      …..Opposite parties

This case came up for final hearing before us on 06.07.2012 in the presence of Sri M/s Joshi Narayan Rao, Advocate for complainant and Sri M. Venkataiah, Advocate for Opposite parties No.1 to 3, and heard the arguments of opposite parties, 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)

1.                          This complaint is filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant alleging that he purchased the four wheeler bearing No. KA 38 4491, for a consideration of Rs. 3,11,000/- from the opposite parties is an open auction by paying the relevant fees on

 06.02.2009 for Rs. 5,000/- vide receipt No. BIDAR-0902060016,

 25.02.2009 for Rs. 1,15,000/- vide receipt no. Bidar-0903170001

 and dt. 13.03.2009 for Rs. 4,750/- vide receipt no. Bidar-0903130002.

      The said vehicle was actually seized from a defaulter and sold to the complainant. The opposite parties arranged the financial assistance of Rs. 2,00,000/-. After payment of difference amount and other amounts, as per the demand of the opposite parties; Opposite party No. 1 entered into hire purchase agreement on 07.05.2009 with the complainant, creating charge over the vehicle. The vehicle was delivered to the complainant is the month of June 2009. The opposite parties fixed the loan instalments for a duration of 24 months @ Rs. 14,794/- for the first 8 months @ Rs. 11,500/- for the next 8 months and @ Rs. 6,575/- for the last 8 months.

It is further submitted that the complainant paid the installments intermittently amounting to Rs. 2,23,750 and on 10.03.2011 the complainant approached opposite party No. 1 and expressed his willingness to clear the loan amount and insisted for the settlement of accounts, to enable him to verify the payments and confirm the balance due as on that date. Opposite party No. 1 was reluctant to give any statement and insisted that the complainant pay 1,32,422/- without any basis. The opposite parties failed to account for the payments made by the complainant and failed to furnish the copies of agreement entered into. Since the opposite parties failed to comply with the demand of the complainant, he issued a notice through his counsel. The opposite parties sent an evasive reply on 11.04.2011 which prompted him to file the present complaint, with a prayer to provide Photostat copies of hypothecation agreement, statement of account and sanction letter pertaining to the loan account No. BIDAR-903090002 to pay Rs. 50,000/- as damages and award any other relief or reliefs.

2.           Opposite parties filed their counter admitting the receipt of payments but claimed that the amount of Rs.2,14,750/- paid by the complainant is credited to an earlier account. They stated that on 10.03.2011 they furnished the statement of accounts to the complainant showing the liability as Rs. 1,32,422/- but the complainant insisted that opposite parties settle his dues on payment of Rs. 30,000/- although he was a chronic defaulter.

They denied that the complainant approached them for furnishing  the copies of agreement or statement of accounts. He is doing this only to evade the payment of Rs. 1,32,422/- since they are not at fault, the opposite parties claim that they are not liable to pay Rs. 50,000/-. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.

3.             Complainant let evidence in the forum of his affidavit reiterating the facts stated in his complainant and exhibited Exs. A1 to A12. Where as opposite parties filed the affidavit of one Chandra Shekar MS and exhibited documents B1 to B8. Opposite parties filed the written arguments. Whereas  no one turned up on behalf of the complainant despite several adjournments. Hence the arguments on behalf of complainant is taken as heard.

4.                The point for consideration is whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and if so is the complainant entitled to any relief?

Point:

5.                There is no dispute with regard to the purchase of seized vehicle by the complainant from the opposite parties: Neither is the amount of Rs. 2,23,750/- paid by complainant disputed – but as per opposite parties, they have adjusted it to an earlier account. The dispute is that the complainant is a chronic defaulter ready to pay only Rs. 30,000/- where as the opposite parties claim is he has to pay Rs. 1,32,422/- as on 11.09.2011.

                   It is the contention of the complainant that although he had paid the monies, the opposite parties did not hand over the vehicle to him for a long time. On perusal of Ex. A1 to A9 it is evident that the complainant paid in all an amount of Rs. 3,34,750/- to the opposite parties as on 30.11.2010 as against a loan amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-.

                   A perusal of Ex. B1 shows that the opposite parties are entitled to interest from the complainant vide monthly rests as per schedule III and the interest rates are applicable as per the Reserve Bank of India norms. According to Ex. A1 to A9, which is not denied, the opposite parties have received Rs. 3,34,750/- i.e. Rs. 80,510/- in excess of the amount entitled by them. A perusal of Ex. B2 alleged to be the statement of accounts filed by the opposite parties shows that the complainant is due to pay Rs. 1,32,422/- as on 11.09.2011, Rs. 54,240/- is shown as finance charges and Rs. 74,842 being the overdue interest and Rs. 18,090/- being the insurance amount charges. The opposite parties failed to explain or clarify in detail as to how much interest is levied on the above sums and for what duration.  Nor is there any clarity for the accumulated figures so as to believe the correctness of the statement. And this is in dispute, for which the complainant has been asking the opposite parties to furnish the statement of accounts which they failed to do.

                   Moreover the opposite parties failed to file the directives issued from time to time by the Reserve Bank of India as enshrined in Ex. B1 agreement, so as to claim their entitled interest. Now where in Ex. B1 agreement, is there mentioned that the opposite parties are entitled for overdue charges or otherwise.

                   From the inception the complainant has not been furnished a ‘proper’ statement of accounts to asses his position. As can be seen from Ex. B1 to B8, no detailed statement is furnished by the opposite parties for the reasons best known to them and the very act of with holding such a statement throws a cloak of doubt on their claim. Nothing is explained by the opposite parties as to how they are entitled towards such huge amounts – pertaining to finance charges and no record is filed to support their claim. It appears that the demand of the opposite parties is not legal and hence the complainant made demands for furnishing the detailed statements of accounts. Inspite of initiating the present complaint the opposite parties failed to file the statement as demanded by the complainant.

                   It is further alleged by the complainant that the opposite parties handed over the vehicle to him after a long time although the payment was received by them at the first instance. A perusal of Ex. A1 to A4 receipts shows that the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.1,54,750/- (More than half of the borrowed money).

Ex. B1 was executed way back on 27^th February 2009, Ex.B6 policy was obtained on 23.09.2009 at Jaipur in Rajasthan state. Why did the opposite parties obtain the policy at Jaipur when the complainant is residing at Medak District is not explained.

                   A perusal of Ex. A10 shows that the vehicle was transferred in the name of the complainant along with hypothecation endorsement on 27.06.2009. No reasons are assigned by the opposite parties as to the inordinate delay in transferring the vehicle in the name of the complainant when they are in receipt of the amount covered by Ex. A1 to A4 and when the agreement was said to have been executed on 27.02.2009. This supports the contention of the complainant that the opposite parties delayed handing over the vehicle to him.

                   Surprisingly, the agreement date is mentioned as 7^th May 2009 in Ex. A10 – Certificate of Registration. This creates a doubt as to the authenticity of Ex. B1, if the agreement was entered on 27.02.2009 why did the opposite parties mention the date of agreement 7^th May 2009 ? And if the agreement date – 7^th May 2009 is to he believed, the claim of the complainant that the vehicle was not delivered would be true.

                   Ex.B1 proves that the vehicle was not delivered to the complainant in the month of February 2009 though they received the monies covered by Ex.A1 to A4. For reasons best known, opposite parties failed to furnish the detailed statement of account to enable the complainant to verify the validity. More so to enable the forum to know the proper accounts.

                   Opposite parties are obliged to furnish the details to the complainant as regards amount and interest charged. This is a grave short coming in the instant case. Truth always prevails and the document filed by the opposite parties is contradictory and speaks volumes about the shabby manner of maintaining their accounts. It is for the opposite parties to substantiate their contention by proper evidence, which they failed to do. And for the above reasons, the complainant is entitled to a detailed statement of accounts from opposite parties. Since no relief is claimed by the complainant with regard to excess charge of interest, we do not grant any relief in that regard. However, for the laches on the part of the opposite parties, they are charged/ burdened with Rs. 10,000/- as compensation to the complainant, which they are directed to pay. Hence we answer the issues in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties.

6.                In the result we allow the complaint of the complainant to direct the opposite parties to furnish statement of accounts with respect to his loan account and also to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for the inconvenience and hardship caused to him and further to pay costs of Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant. Time for compliance: one month.

         Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum this    1^st day of August, 2012.

                       Sd/-                                                 Sd/-

                FAC PRESIDENT                             LADY MEMBER          

WITNESS EXAMINED

For the complainant:                                            For the opposite parties:-

-NIL-                                                                               -NIL-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For the complainant:                                            For the opposite parties:-

                              Sd/-                                                     Sd/-

FAC PRESIDENT                                    LADY MEMBER       

Copy to

1)     The Complainant

2)     The Opposite parties

3)     Spare copy