Complaint filed on: 14.07.2015
Complaint Disposed on:23.05.2017
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT CHICKMAGALUR.
COMPLAINT NO.107/2015
DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF MAY 2017
:PRESENT:
HON’BLE SRI RAVISHANKAR, B.A.L, LL.B., - PRESIDENT
HON’BLE SMT B.U.GEETHA, M. COM., LL.B., -MEMBER
HON’BLE SMT H. MANJULA, B.A.L., LL.B., - MEMBER
COMPLAINANT/S:
Manjunatha S,
S/o Subbaiah,
Aged about 34 years,
R/o Chanduvalli Village,
Coove Post, Balur Hobli,
Mudigere Taluk.
(By Sri/Smt. S.Prakash, Advocate)
V/s
OPPONENT/S:
The Manager,
Cholamandalam Investment &
Finance Co., Ltd., 1st Floor,
Ashwini Complex, I.G. Road,
Chikmagalur.
(OP By Sri/Smt. H.M.Sudhakar, Advocate)
By Hon’ble President Sri. Ravishankar,
:O R D E R:
The complainant filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against OP alleging unfair trade practice/deficiency in service in taking possession of the vehicle bearing no.KA-18-B-0315. Hence, prays for direction against Op to release the said vehicle along with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for deficiency in service/unfair trade practice.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is that:
The complainant has purchased Force Trump 40 LGV vehicle for his daily earnings in order to earn his livelihood and he registered the vehicle before RTO in his name vide registration no.KA-18-B-0315. At the time of purchasing the vehicle the complainant had availed a loan of Rs.3,05,150/- from Op and entered into an hire purchase agreement on 06.04.2012. The complainant also agreed to pay the loan at 45 monthly equal installments, accordingly complainant had regularly paid the installments to Op. But in some two to three occasions he could not paid the monthly installments, at that time the Op has illegally imposed fine and charges and on enquiry the Op had not produced any account extract or statement of loan accounts to the complainant. Anyhow the complainant has paid the loan installments to the Op. Even after payment of the installments Op illegally seized the vehicle of the complainant in the month of January 2015 for non-payment of only three installments.
The vehicle of the complainant is only the source of income for his livelihood, by seizing the vehicle the Op had rendered a deficiency in service inspite of regular payment of the installments. The complainant has requested the Op on several occasions to release the vehicle and intimated that he is ready to pay the installments, but Op has not considered the request made by complainant. Hence, Op rendered deficiency in service in taking re-possession of the vehicle from the complainant. Hence, prays for direction against Op to release the vehicle bearing registration no.KA-18-B-0315 to the complainant along with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for deficiency in service/unfair trade practice in the interest of justice and equity.
3. After service of notice Op appeared through his counsel and filed version and contended that the complainant has availed a loan from this Op by executing the loan agreement to purchase Force Trump 40 LGV bearing registration no.KA-18-B-0315 for the purpose of transportation business and complainant on 06.04.2012 had executed the hire purchase agreement for sum of Rs.3,52,000/- and agreed to pay 45 installments without any fail. But complainant had not paid the installments regularly within the stipulated time. This Op without having any option have issued sufficient notice, but the complainant even after receipt of the notices had not paid the installments, this Op also sent the notices through registered post on 04.12.2014 and same was received by complainant. Even after receipt of the registered post also complainant had not paid the arrears. Having no option this Op had re-possessed the vehicle as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement by following all procedures before re-possession on 07.01.2015. Even after re-possession of the vehicle the complainant had not bothered to clear the loan dues. In this regard this Op had issued pre sale letter to the complainant through registered post. The said pre sale letter was served on the complainant, but complainant not bothered to clear the loan dues. After providing the sufficient opportunities to the complainant this Op had assessed the vehicle through approved valuator by collecting quotation form and intending purchase by issuing sale notice. This Op had sold the vehicle on the highest rate available in the market by adopting due procedures. Accordingly, the vehicle was sold at the price of Rs.1,79,868/-. Hence, there is no any deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on the part of this Op, even there is no cause of action arose in the complaint. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Complainant filed affidavit and marked documents as Ex.P.1 to P.4. Op also filed affidavit and marked documents as Ex.R.1 to R.7.
5. Heard the arguments.
6. In the proceedings, the following points do arise for our consideration and decision:
- Whether there is deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on the part of OP.
- Whether complainant entitled for any relief & what Order?
7. Our findings on the above points are as follows:-
- Point No.1: Negative.
- Point No.2: As per Order below.
: R E A S O N S :
POINT NOs. 1 & 2:
8. On going through the pleadings, affidavits and documents produced by both complainant and Op we observed that there is no dispute that the complainant availed loan of Rs.3,05,150/- by Op by executing hire purchase agreement on 06.04.2012, the complainant also agreed to pay the loan installments regularly. But the complainant subsequently alleges that inspite of regular payment of the loan installments Op have seized the vehicle for only due of 3 installments. The said installments were not paid due to inconvenience, but complainant had requested the Op not to seize the vehicle and also suggested to repay loan installments, inspite of that Op seized the vehicle. Hence, alleges deficiency in service/unfair trade practice.
9. On contrary the Op had taken a contention that the complainant is not regular in paying the loan installments, they have issued a sufficient notice and also demand notices through registered post to the complainant. But inspite of receipt of the demand notice complainant had not paid the installments, for which they have seized the vehicle by following due procedure as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. Even after seizure of the vehicle complainant had not repaid the installments. Finally they have issued pre sale letter to the complainant, even after receipt of the pre sale letter complainant had not paid the loan arrears. Hence, subsequently they have sold the vehicle in a public auction as per the procedure, they have sold the vehicle for non-payment of the loan. Hence, submits no deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on his part.
10. The complainant has produced notice dated:12.12.2014 issued by Op marked as Ex.P.1, Copy of the R.C. marked as Ex.P.2, Loan extract marked as Ex.P.3, Letter issued to RTO, Chikmagalur dated:20.04.2015 marked as Ex.P.4 in support of his case. The Op also filed documents such as Copy of the loan application marked as Ex.R.2, Copy of the statement of loan accounts of the complainant marked as Ex.R.3, Pre sale intimation to the police station marked as Ex.R.4, Final call letter issued in the name of complainant for payment of arrears marked as Ex.R.5, Copy of the pre sale letter dated:09.01.2015 in the name of complainant marked as Ex.R.7 in support of their defense. On perusal of the documents produced by both the parties, we are of the opinion that the complainant is not regular in paying the loan installments which was taken for the purpose of purchase of the vehicle. It is clear evidence as per Ex.R.5 that the Op has issued a final call letter to the complainant on 04.12.2014 for payment of arrears of the loan, the said notice was served and even the complainant also produced notice dated:12.12.2014 marked as Ex.P.1 which discloses that the complainant was not paying the installments regularly, without having any option the Op had seized the vehicle by intimating the nearest police station as per Ex.R.4 and we are of the opinion that the Op have followed the procedure as per the terms and conditions of the hire purchase agreement for the purpose of recovery of the installments from complainant. The complainant had never stated in his affidavit or in his pleadings that the vehicle was sold in a public auction. We found the complainant is a chronic defaulter in paying the loan installments to the Op. Hence, the allegations made by complainant are not justifiable and we are of the opinion that there is no any deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on the part of Op in taking further action as per the loan agreement of the complainant. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed and for the above said reasons, we answer the above point no.1 and 2 in the Negative and proceed to pass the following:-
: O R D E R :
- The complaint filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
- Send free copies of this order to both the parties.
(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed typed by her, transcript corrected by me and then pronounced in Open Court on this the 23rd day of May 2017).
(B.U.GEETHA) (H. MANJULA) (RAVISHANKAR)
Member Member President
ANNEXURES
Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant/S:
Ex.P.1 - Letter issued by Op dtd:12.12.2014.
Ex.P.2 - Copy of the R.C.
Ex.P.3 - Statement of loan account dtd:13.04.2000 to 13.04.2014.
Ex.P.4 - Copy of the letter issued by complainant to R.T.O,
Chikmagalur.
Documents produced on behalf of the OP/S:
Ex.R.1 - Notarized copy of the GPA.
Ex.R.2 - Copy of the loan application.
Ex.R.3 - Statement of loan account.
Ex.R.4 - Pre seizure intimation to Hassan police station
dtd:07.01.2015.
Ex.R.5 - Final demand notice dtd:04.12.14 issued to complainant for
payment of the loan.
Ex.R.6 - Postal Ack. due.
Ex.R.7 - Copy of the pre sale letter.
Dated:23.05.2017 President
District Consumer Forum,
Chikmagalur.
RMA
