Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/459/2014

Rafiq M Patwegar. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Chola. Cholamandam Investment & Finance Co Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

A.B.Nadaf.

16 Mar 2017

ORDER

IN THE DIST.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM BELAGAVI.

 

Dated this 16^th day of March 2017

 

Complaint No.458 & 459/2014

 

Present:            1) Shri. B.V.Gudli,     President

                        2) Smt.Sunita            Member

-***-

 

Complainant/s:  

Sri.Rafiq Mohammedsiraf Patwegar,

Age: 49 years, Occ: Business,

R/o. H.No.201/A, Mangalwar Peth,

Londa, Tq: Khanapur, Dist. Belagavi

In CC/458 & 459/2016

 

(By Sri. A.B.Nadaf, Advocate).

 

V/s.

Opponent/s:                                                

 

        1)     The Manager, Chola.

                   Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Co. Ltd.,

II Floor, Suman Plaza, Civil Hospital Road, Belagavi.

 

        2)     The Area Manager, Chola.

                   Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Co. Ltd.,

77/1, I Floor, Kalburgi Square, Desai Cross,

Deshpande Nagar, Hubli.

 

(O.P.1 &2 by Sri. D.B.Patil, Advocate)

 

 

(Order dictated by Shri. B.V.Gudli, President)

 

 

COMMON ORDER

          I. Though the complainants are same, their grievances, allegations and the facts pleaded are same except the details of the vehicles by the complainant. In all the cases the O.Ps. are same. Hence, for convenience these 2 cases are disposed of by the common order.

 

          1) The complainant has filed the complaints U/s 12 of the C.P. Act, against the OPs, alleging deficiency in service in illegally repossessing the vehicles.

          2) Relevant facts are that, the complainant runs his family by doing transportation of goods. The complainant has 2 H.G. vehicles. The OPs have given the said vehicles to complainant on hire basis and it was agreed to pay Rs.61250/- to OPs every month & accordingly the complainant has duly paid the same regularly to OPs till 31.05.2014. After that the OPs stopped the complainant using the vehicles and to allot new vehicles in its place. The OPs took unauthorized possession of the vehicles only in order to defraud the rights of complainant. The OPs had provided the vehicles to complainant on hire purchase basis & since the hire amount was about to be closed. The OPs have taken number of cheques signed by complainant as security.  As per the request of OPs the said vehicles are parked near SC Motors, Sambra Road, Belagavi.  The OPs assured and agreed to another vehicle to complainant ranging from 35 to 40 tons on hire basis. Hence the complainant agreed and also handed over all the original documents of vehicle to OPs. But till this date the new vehicles are not supplied by the OPs inspite of many requests made by complainant. The OPs have also not returned the blank cheques of complainant. Hence the complainant had issued legal notice to OPs on 12.05.2014 to compensate the complainant or give another vehicle as assured. When the said notice was served on OPs the OPs called the complainant at parking place and threatened him with dire consequences. Hence the complainant filed Private Complaint 102/2014 on the file of II JMFC Belgaum & the matter is referred to Mal Maruti  Police Station, Belgaum for investigation & report. Later the OPs gave reply notice dt.19.05.2014 to the counsel of complainant on 27.05.2014 with false facts. Hence the complainant has filed these complaints against OPs.

 

3) The OPs filed their objections denying and disputing the complaint averments and further contended that, the complainant approached the OPs requesting to extend financial assistance to purchase the Tata LPT vehicles. Accordingly OPs sanctioned loan to the complainant and loan agreement was entered into between the parties. As per the terms and conditions of agreement the complainant agreed to repay the said financed amount in 49 EMIs with interest from 10.10.2012 to 10.10.2016. The complainant defaulted in paying the EMIs to OPs and the cheques given by complainant are bounced. Inspite of several demands complainant did not pay the outstanding due amount. With no other option the vehicles were repossessed by the OPs on 21.06.2014. Before repossession OPs issued final call letter dt 01.05.2014 to complainant, but complainant not adhered to the same. After repossession of the vehicles the OPs issued notice to complainant to pay termination value within 7 days failing which, the OPs would take steps to sell the vehicles. But complainant did not bothered to pay the outstanding dues. There is no deficiency of service on the part of OPs. Hence prays for dismissal of the complaints.

 

          4) Inspite of sufficient opportunities given to complainant, in support of the claim made in the complaints the complainant has not filed his affidavit, but produced certain documents. On the other hand, O.Ps. have filed their affidavits and produced some documents.  

 

          5) Now the point for our consideration is that whether the complainants have proved deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. and entitled to the reliefs sought?

 

          6) Our finding on the point is partly in negative, for the following reasons.

:: R E A S O N S ::

 

          7)      After granting sufficient time the complainant failed to file his evidence affidavit. On perusal of order sheet inspite of granting sufficient time the advocate for complainant has not filed his affidavit. Hence evidence affidavit of complainant is taken as not filed. On perusal of contents of complaint the complainant failed to prove the contents of complaint through his evidence.

 

          8)      On perusal of memo filed by the advocate for OPs “the top noted matter is settled between complainant & OPs as per the Memorandum of Understanding executed between complainant & OPs.

The complainant has  complied as per the Memorandum of Understanding to the OPs as executed by the complainant and hence, now it is the complainant has to withdraw the complaint against OPs filed before this forum as agreed. Further, if he fails to withdraw the same, then the same may kindly be dismissed.”

 

          9)      On perusal of para.4 of Memorandum of Understanding the 2^nd party agrees to withdraw all the legal proceedings including but not limited to the consumer case & criminal case mentioned herein above filed against the 1^st party & also undertakes to withdraw all and any other civil/criminal legal cases filed against 1^st party and/or its employees pending in any court/forum/authority & shall not raise any further claims against the 1^st party whatsoever.

 

          10)    The complainant has not advanced his arguments. Hence in view of the Memorandum of Understanding the complaint is not maintainable and complainant fail to comply Memorandum of Understanding.

 

          11) Considering the facts, discussion made here before and the conclusion arrived at, we pass the following order.

 

ORDER

          The Complaints are dismissed.  No order as to costs.

          Original order be kept in CC 458/14 & its copy in CC 459/14.

(Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on:16^th day of March 2017).

 

    

 

 

 

MSR