CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PALAKKAD, KERALA

Dated this the 26^th day of September, 2012.

Present: Smt. Seena. H, President

: Smt. Preetha. G. Nair, Member

: Smt. Bhanumathi. A.K, Member Date of filing: 18/01/2012

CC / 17/ 2012

Asharaf Ali,

S/o.Abdul Rahiman,

Parakkunnam, Cresnet line,

Palakkad. - Complainant

(BY Adv.K.P.Nouphel)

Vs

1. Integrated finance company limited,

R 10,2^nd Floor, Prem Nagar Colony,

South Boag Road, T Nagar,

Chennai, Tamilnadu, - Opposite parties

Pin.600 017 Rep.by its Chairman

(BY ADV. Saju Abraham.T)

2. Integrated finance company limited,

Kadamkode, Kadamkode Post,

Chittur Road, Palakkad

Rep by its Manager.

(BY ADV. Saju Abraham.T)

O R D E R

BY SMT. PREETHA. G. NAIR, MEMBER

The complainant availed loan from the 2^nd opposite party on 13/12/2004 for purchasing a Bajaj Auto Rickshaw bearing number KL 9D.4052. As per the arrangement the complainant has to repay a sum of Rs.1,287/- per month for a period of 24 months up to 12/12/2006. At the time of availing financial assistance from the opposite parties obtained blank signed papers of the complainant as well as a security of repayment. The complainant was regular in his repayment and the opposite parties were reluctant to give proper receipt to the payments made by him. Finally on 01/01/2008 the opposite parties forfeited the vehicle from the complainant worth Rs.50,000/-.

Thereafter when the complainant approaches the opposite parties and enquired about the subject matter, they hold that the vehicle is forfeited towards the final settlement of Rs.12,000/-. They further undertake that if the vehicle is allowed to be kept in their custody would be sold for Rs.50,000/- and the account of complainant will be closed by recording full satisfaction and balance will be paid to him. The opposite party assured that the blank signed papers obtained from the complainant would be either destroyed or returned after cancellation. So the complainant not initiated any legal action against the opposite parties by considering that some how a legal action can be ousted since he was about to go out of station for searching a job. At that time the entire record of the transactions are taken back the opposite parties from the complainant. Thereafter till date the opposite parties not returned back the signed papers of the complainant and not repaid the excess sale proceeds as promised. Now by fabricating false documents with the blank signed papers of complainant, the opposite parties are trying to proceed legally against the complainant at Chennai. On 11/01/2012 the opposite parties stated that they sold the Autorikshaw of the complainant for Rs.3,000/- and the balance amount with interest is due to them. The act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service. On 25/07/2011 the opposite parties filed false case against the complainant by using signed papers as original at Chennai. Hence the complainant prays an order directing the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- towards the deficiency in service as compensation and give back the signed documents of the complainant.

Opposite parties filed version by the power of attorney holder stating the following contentions. The complainant is not a consumer. The allegation of the complainant on the loan cum hypothecation agreement on 13/12/2004 for purchasing the vehicle is true. The opposite parties stated that since payments were not made by the complainant on due dates as per the agreement dated 13/12/2004 he agreed to pay the additional finance charges on overdue equated monthly installments @3% per mensum. The complainant agreed to pay to opposite parties the sum Rs.30,888/- in equated monthly installments of Rs.1287/-. As per the loan cum hypothecation agreement the first payment commences from 13/01/2005 and the 24^th installment due on 30/12/2006. The opposite party never obtained any blank signed papers or signature in any printed papers from the complainant as a security or any other purposes. The complainant was not paid the installment to the 1^st opposite party regularly on due dates as per the agreement. The averment of the complainant that the opposite parties were reluctant to give proper receipts to the payment made by the complainant is not correct. It is true that on 01/08/2008 the opposite parties repossessed the vehicle for non payment of installments. But the vehicle was in a damaged condition at that time. The complainant never contacted the opposite party for settlement for a sum of Rs.12,000/- or informed them regarding settlement. The opposite party never informed the complainant that the vehicle will be sold for Rs.50,000/- and the balance would be repaid for settling the account. Opposite parties filed a civil suit O.S.6091/2011 before the City Civil Court Chennai, on 25/07/2011 and the notice is also sent to the complainant from the court. The opposite parties have already initiated steps to recover the balance amount due from the complainant under due process of law. At the time of repossessing the vehicle was not in a running condition and was worth only Rs.3,000/-. The opposite parties are no way liable to pay any compensation as claimed. The opposite parties have not obtained any signed blank papers and not liable to return. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence they prayed that dismiss the complaint with cost.

Both parties filed their chief affidavit. Ext.B1 to B4 marked on the side of opposite parties. No documentary evidence produced by the complainant. No answers filed by the complainant. Matter heard.

Issues to be considered are

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer?

2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?

3. If so what is the relief and cost?

Issue No:1

Issue No.1 answered as per the order in IA 124/2012. Hence the 1^st issue answered in favour of the complainant.

Issue No.2 & 3

We perused relevant document on record. The complainant filed affidavit. No documents produced by the complainant to show the loan transactions. According to the complainant he has to repay a sum of Rs.1,287/- per month for a period of 24 months, that is upto 12/12/2006. In Ext.B4 EMI amount was Rs.1,662/-. There was no dispute regarding the amount of EMI. Also in Ext.B4 shows the details of statement of account of complainant.

As per Ext.B3 the copy of plaint in O.S.No.6091 of 2011, 2^nd page 4^th para mentioned that “Under the said agreement the Defendants agreed to pay to UTI through the plaintiff a total sum of Rs.30,888/- in equated monthly installments of Rs.1,287/-”. The opposite party stated that they never obtained any blank signed papers or signature in any printed papers from the complainant as a security or any other purposes. The complainant has not produced evidence to show that they obtained blank signed papers or signature in any printed papers. The further averment regarding the value of the vehicle as Rs.50,000/- at the time of repossession by the opposite parties is not correct. The complainant filed I.A.186/12 to call for the documents. IA allowed. Then the opposite party filed affidavit stating that their main office at Madras is sealed by the Tamil Nadu Govt. and the entire records pertaining to the case is kept in the main office. So the opposite parties could not produced evidence to show the vehicle sold only Rs.3,000/-. No contradictory evidence produced by the complainant. Also the opposite parties had not examined by the complainant.

At the time of repossession of the vehicle by the opposite party dated 01/08/2008 the dues without interest was less than 30,000/-. On 28/08/2008 the dues amount with 36% interest was Rs.40,668.39.

In Ext.B1 & B2 the copy of loan cum hypothecation agreement and hire purchase agreement no where mentioned the 36% of interest. The complainant had purchased the vehicle and executed the hirepurchase agreement on 13/12/2004. The opposite parties stated that they repossessed the vehicle on 01/08/2008. According to the opposite parties the vehicle was not in good condition and sold on Rs.3,000/- only. No documentary evidence produced by the opposite parties.

Later the complainant filed application for adjournment of the case for 1 year stating complainant going abroad. At that time complainant filed affidavit. Hence IA dismissed. Thereafter the opposite parties filed questionnaire. But the complainant not filed answers.

The complainant has not produced evidence to show the loan amount paid total. As per Ext.B4 the complainant was a defaulter. So we cannot consider the prayer of return the signed documents of complainant. Also the opposite parties stated that they had not obtained signed blank papers. The opposite parties had not produced evidence to show the sale of vehicle worth Rs.3,000/-. Also the complainant has not produced evidence to show the price of the vehicle. After three years from the date of loan transactions the opposite parties repossessed the vehicle.

In the above discussions, we cannot attributed any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. The complaint filed on 18/01/2012. As per Ext.B3 the opposite parties filed the plaint before the City Civil Court at Chennai in the year 2011. The opposite parties filed questionnaire regarding the civil suit pending before the Civil Court at Chennai and the price of the vehicle at the time of taking possession. But the complainant not filed answers. The complainant miserably failed to prove his case.

In the result complaint dismissed.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 26^th day of September, 2012.

Sd/-

Smt. Seena. H

President

Sd/-

Smt. Preetha.G.Nair

Member

Sd/-

Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K

Member

A P P E N D I X

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Nil

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite parties

Ext.B1:-Loan cum hypothecation agreement executed between Ashraf Ali and

others dt.13/12/2004 (Photocopy)

Ext.B2:-Hire purchase agreement entered into between Ashraf Ali and another

dt.13/12/2004 (Photocopy)

Ext.B3:- Plaint in O.S.No.609/2011 filed by opposite party in the Cit Civil Court at

Chennai dt.25/07/2011.(True copy)

Ext.B4:- Statement of accounts produced by Integrated Finance Co.Ltd.(True copy)

Witness examined on the side of complainant

Nil

Witness examined on the side of opposite parties

Nil.

Cost allowed

Nil