Karnataka

Kolar

CC/21/2015

Sri.B.V.Venteshappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Karnataka State Financial Corporation - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.Shankar.S.Bhat

20 Dec 2016

ORDER

Date of Filing: 11/06/2015

Date of Order: 20/12/2016

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.

 

Dated: 20^th DAY OF  DECEMBER 2016

PRESENT

SMT. PRATHIBHA.R.K., BAL LLM, PRESIDENT

SRI. R. CHOWDAPPA, B.A., LLB…..    MEMBER

SMT. A.C. LALITHA, BAL., LLB           ……  LADY MEMBER

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO :: 21 OF 2015

Sri.B.V. Venkateshappa,

S/o. Venkatappa, Aged About

47 Years, Residing in a House

Situated behind Police Quarters (Station),

Gallpete, Chikkaballapura Road,

Kolar-563 101.

 

(Rep. by Sriyuth. Krishnappa, Advocate)                          ….  Complainant.

 

- V/s -

1) The Karnataka State Financial

Corporation, having its registered

Office at No.1/1, 3^rd Floor, K.S.F.C.

Bhavan, Thimmaiah Road,

Bangalore-560 052.

Rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director.

 

2) The Karnataka State Financial

Corporation, District/Branch Office at C.R.S.

Complex, M.B. Road, Near K.S.R.T.C. Bus

Stand, Kolar-563 101, Rep. by its

District Manager.

(Rep. by Sriyuth. J.S.Sathya Murthy, Advocate)       …. Opposite Parties.

-: ORDER:-

 

BY SMT. A.C. LALITHA, LADY MEMBER

01.   The complainant having submitted this complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred in short as “the Act”) against OPs has sought issuance of directions to Ops to make payment of a sum of Rs.7,04,000/- as compensation with 18% interest per annum from the date of Ops abducting the vehicle and sold till realization.  As well as a sum of Rs.10,30,848/- with 24% interest per annum towards loss of earnings and a sum of Rs.50,000/- on account of failure of Ops to furnish proper statement of accounts, as well as costs and any other reliefs as the Forum to deem fit.

 

02.   The facts in brief:-

(a)    It is worth to note that, the complainant has pleaded irrelevant theory of so many aspects which includes criminal prosecutions, revenue issues etc.,.  Hence we have taken only main contention of complainant which is relevant facts of the case on hand.

 

(b)    It is contention of the complainant that, complainant had availed a loan of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Only) from OPS for purchase of Bare Engine of Tractor.  While sanctioning loan, Ops assured and informed him that, the principal amount of loan sanctioned includes the subsidy amount of Rs.2,00,000/- under State Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Corporation and Central Government – Jawahar and Rajiv Gandhi Rozgar Yojana and other plans and schemes meant for scheduled caste and tribe.

 

(c)    It is contended that, among the said loan he had repaid a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- in installments and hardly Rs.50,000/- may remains to be payable.  But the Ops were demanded to pay a sum of Rs.15,50,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs and fifty thousand Only) as balance loan amount.  Later on Ops stolen the Tractor and Trailer without his notice and sold out the said vehicle for higher price, even then Ops insisting him to pay a sum of Rs.28,94,917/- (Rupees Twenty – Eight lakhs Ninety – Four Thousand Nine Hundred and Seventeen).  Thus Ops have cheated him.

 

(d)    It is further contended that, he had filed a suit in O.S. No.427/2002 on the file of Hon’ble Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dvn.) Kolar against Ops and also filed M.A. No.62/2003 before Hon’ble Principal Civil Judge, Kolar, both cases are dismissed.  Again he had filed a suit in O.S. No.128/2005 which is also dismissed as not maintainable.  And Ops are held liable for criminal prosecution Under Provisions of Sections 463, 464, 465, 467, 468, 470 and 471 R/w Section 35 of IPC for creating false documents. 

 

(e)    It is further contended that, he approached OP-2 and requested to release the seized vehicle by receiving installment amount, but OP-2 refused and stated that, a sum of Rs.78,562/- is the total outstanding amount inclusive of interest.

 

(f)     It is also contended that, without prior notice Ops sold out the vehicle in auction and later they informed him that, nothing is remained to pay towards loan but OP-2 has to pay him a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and also informed that, the said amount would be payable after completion of correspondence with OP-1.  Approach of him to OP-2 in this regard made him shock, that OP-2 had given a demand notice dated: 13.03.2002 to pay a sum of Rs.78,562/- outstanding loan amount.

 

(g)    It is further contended that, in this regard he had filed a suit in O.S. No.203/2012 on the file of Hon’ble Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dvn.), Kolar, the same was dismissed as he himself filed memo to not press the suit and to file fresh suit.   So contending, the complainant has come up with this compliant by seeking above setout reliefs.

 

03.   In response to the notice issued with regard to the case on hand, Ops have put in their appearance through their learned counsel and submitted written version.

 

(a)    The main contention of the Ops is that, the complaint is barred by limitation and this Forum has no jurisdiction as the complaint is of civil and criminal in nature and also contends that, Ops have made their attempts to recover the loan dues from the complainant by issuing the remainder notices and on seizing the primary security also the OP had issued notice to complainant, which was duly served on 03.10.2002 and also for auction the said vehicle Ops followed steps by informing complainant.  But the complainant was failed to clear the dues of loan.  Instead of this, complainant simply filing suits against Ops trying to escape from the liability.

 

(b)    It is contended that, after failure of negotiation with complainant and his guarantor for loan on 29.07.2004 at OP-2 office, the Ops have published in “Kolar Patrike” news paper on 29.12.2004 regarding sale of said vehicle.  Earlier to it the sale of said vehicle was also published in “Honnudi” daily newspaper of Kolar on 16.05.2004.  All these are within the knowledge of complainant.  Since not cleared the loan dues on 28.03.2005 the vehicle was sold for Rs.1,37,000/- (one lakh thirty seven thousand rupees) and same was intimated to complainant and his guarantor on 23.04.2005 through RPAD by OP-2. 

 

(c)    It is contended that, the suits filed by complainant in this regard in Civil Court in O.S. No.324/2005, O.S. No.128/2005, O.S. No.203/2012, which are all came to be dismissed.  The complainant without producing all these documents, just to trouble Ops had filed the complaint.  And the rest of the allegations in complaint are denied and thus Ops were not deficient in rendering the service.  So contending, dismissal of the complaint cost has been sought.

 

04.   The complainant has submitted his affidavit evidence and the below mentioned documents and citations:-

(i) Copy of caste & Income certificate issued by the Tahsildar

(ii) Copy of Invoice issued by the dealer dated: 23.05.2001

(iii) Copy of the letter dated: 22.05.2001 issued by the complainant to Ops.

(iv) Copy of the Letter dt: 22.05.2001 issued by Ops

(v) Copy of official receipt dt. 22.05.2001 issued by Kamadhenu Tractors.

(vi) Copy of Insurance policy dt.16.07.2001 issued by United India Insurance Company Limited

(vii) Copy of letter dt.24.07.2001 issued by the complainant

(viii) Copy of RC issued by the RTO, Kolar, in favour of bare engine tractor.

(ix) Copy of certificate of registration Book issued by the RTO, Kolar, in respect of Trailer.

(x) Copy of Inspection Report made by the Deputy Manager.

(xi) Receipts with counterfoils of challens pertaining to payments made by the complainant towards monthly installment

(xii) Copy of the letter dt.13.03.2002 issued by the OP-2.

(xiii) Copy of the RTI application filed by the complainant along with covering letter, Indian postal order.

(xiv) Copy of the receipt issued by KSFC

(xv) Copy of allocation intimation dt. 10.12.2001 issued by KSFC

(xvi ) Copy of letter dated: 13.03.2002

(xvii) Copy of D.D. dt. 16.12.2013

(xviii) Copy of form-A

(xix ) Copy of letter dt. 13.07.2002

(xx ) Copy of letter dt. 26.08.2002

(xxi ) Copy of Mahazar

(xxii ) Copy of Sale Negotiation Meeting dt. 28.03.2005

(xxiii) Copy of letter dt.21.10.2001 of KSFC

(xxiv) Copy of letter dt.06.01.2012 of KSFC.

(xxv) Shri Rama Transport Ltd v/s. Sandeep Sudhakar Patkar, dt.09.10.2013, Mumbai.

(xxvi) Citi corp maruti finance Ltd, Delhi, -v/s. Vijayalaxmi, dt.10.03.2005.

(xxvii) AIR 2003 Punjab and Haryana 98.

(xxviii) II (2014) CPJ 181 (Chhat)

(xxix) (2007) 2 Supreme Court cases 711.

30. Certified copy of the order sheet in O.S. No.152/2015
31. Certified copy of the plaint in O.S. No.152/2015 with verified affidavit.
32. Copy of the I.A. Under Order 7 Rule 14 A of C.P.C. with affidavit.
33. Copy of the I.A. under 80(2) of C.P.C. with affidavit of complainant.
34. Copy of I.A. Under order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. with affidavit.
35. Copy of the I.A. Under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC with affidavit
36. Copy of I.A. Under Order 23 Rule 1 of CPC with affidavit.

 

05.   On behalf of Ops Sri.B.Dhanraj, Assistant General Manager has submitted his affidavit evidence and the below mentioned documents and citations:-

(i) Letter of request of complainant for sanction of loan dated: 08.03.2001.

(ii) Bio data of complainant furnished by the complainant dt: 05.01.2001

(iii) Bio data of personal guarantor furnished by the complainant and said personal guarantor dated: 05.01.2001

(iv) Loan sanction order dt. 14.05.2001 to complainant.

(v) Hypothecation deed dt. 18.05.2001

(vi) Deed of Guarantee dt. 18.05.2001

(vii) Special power of Attorney from complainant and his personal guarantor dated: 18.05.2001.

(viii) I (2016) CPJ 200 (NC)

(ix) I (2016) CPJ 203 (NC)

(x) Copy of Section 80 CPC notice dt. 07.2015 isued by the complainant to various heads of departments, Government of Karnataka and also to KSFC which was received by the OP-2 on 30.07.2015.

(xi) Copy of RPAD cover

(xii) Letter dated: 05.07.2016 addressed to their advocate intimating the action taken by them for recovery of loan dues as per Sec.32-G of SFC Act-1952

(xiii) Copy of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar Under Section 32-G of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 in Case No. Misc. (ri)/Cr/21/15-16, dt.19.06.2015.

(xiv) Copy of check list with annexure dt.16.05.2015 filed before the Dy. Commissioner, Kolar, by the Ops.

(xv) Office copy of the affidavit filed by the OP before Dy. Commissioner, Kolar, dt.23.05.2015 with annexure.

(xvi) Copy of the demand notice dt.27.07.2015 cum intimation regarding passing of order by Dy.Commissioner, Kolar, U/s.32-G of the SFC Act to the complainant, by the Ops through RPAD.

(xvii) Un-served postal RPAD cover sent to complainant by OP with an endorsement of “REFUSAL’ dt.29.07.2015.

(xviii) Copy of notice dt.20.10.2015 sent to complainant, his guarantor, marking copy to different heads of the taluk and sub-registrars, including the Dy. Commissioner, Kolar, regarding the confiscation of the land of complainant.

(xix) RTC of Sy. No.145/p17-p2 of Belamaranahally, relates to complainant Kolar.

           

06.   Both counsel appearing for both parties submitted their written arguments.

 

07.   Heard the oral arguments as advanced by the learned counsel for both sides.

 

08.   Therefore the only point that does arise for our consideration in this case is:-

“Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?”

 

09.   Finding of this District Forum on the above said point is in the “Negative” for the following:-

 

REASONS

10.   This complainant is not restricted pinpointing about the deficiency rendered by Ops to him in regard to the said contended loan and also in seizing of the vehicle etc., as alleged by the complainant, besides such allegations, the complainant taken contention that, these Ops are held punishable Under Sections 463, 464, 465, 467, 468, 470 and 471 R/w. Section 35 of Indian Penal Code for creating false documents and also contended with the property bearing katha No.281, situated at Belamaranahalli Village, for this he is the absolute owner and Ops denied this version.  The complainant has sought relief with intermingled causes.

                                                                         

11.   When the complainant intends to press in to service the said aspects in evidence in continuation and confirmation of such a plea, by that he expects us to give a finding on it, for which we lack necessary jurisdiction in as much as under the relevant provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, we can entertain the complaint only with regard to deficient in service in seizing of the vehicle as far as this case is concerned and not beyond that.

 

12.   Before parting at this juncture we are to observe that, if at all the complainant is desirous of getting the benefits to claim damages on account of the commission of said offences he shall be entitled to do so only after effective trial of these Ops in a prosecution jurisdictional criminal court and then civil court that too, after getting conclusively successful results in criminal trial with regard to the contended offences but not otherwise.

 

13.   Unless and until the said offences contended stand conclusively proved there cannot be any inference that these Ops since guilty of said offences are accountable for deficient in service.

                                     

14.   In anyway the claim for compensation through the very present complaint itself against these Ops is not merely for deficiency in service towards loan and seizing of the said vehicle as contended but with deeply intermingled causes with regard to offences under IPC, coupled with other revenue and civil aspects also.  Intermingled causes cannot be separable and decided.  We lack jurisdiction to probe in to it.

 

15.   Before parting we emphatically make our observations that, none of the principles in the said citations became necessary for us to invoke; like-wise for the documents relied by either side too.  Hence we proceed to pass the following:-

 

ORDER

01.   For foregoing reasons the present complaint stands Dismissed with a direction of both parties to bear their own costs.

 

02.   Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost

(Dictated to the Stenographer in the Open Forum, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 20^th DAY OF DECEMBER 2016)

 

 

 

 

 

LADY MEMBER                        MEMBER                         PRESIDENT