Date of Filing : 21.01.2012
Date of Order : 16.04.2012
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR
Dated 16th APRIL 2012
PRESENT
Sri. H.V. RAMACHANDRA RAO, B.Sc., BL, ……. PRESIDENT
Sri. T.NAGARAJA, B.Sc., LLB. …….. MEMBER
Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, B.A., LLB. …….. MEMBER
CC No. 07 / 2012
M. Ramarishnappa,
S/o. P. Mallappa,
R/o. T. Kurubarahalli, Thippadoddi (Post),
Byrakur Hobli, Mulbagal Taluk,
Kolar District.
(By Sri. M. Varada Reddy, Adv.) ……. Complainant
V/s.
1. The Manager,
Indus Ind Bank, No. 278, 1st Floor,
Hotel Panchvati Complex,
Sarvajna Park Circle, Fort, Kolar Town,
Opp. to Boys College,
Kolar Town – 563 101.
2. M/s. Indus Ind Bank,
No. 87, II Floor, Bull Temple Road,
Basavanagudi,
Bangalore – 560 009.
(By Sri. Ramakrishna.C., Adv.) …… Opposite Parties
ORDER
By Sri. H.V. RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT
The brief antecedents that lead to the filing of the Complainant made u/s. 12 of the C.P. Act seeking direction to the OPs to pay to the Complainant Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and to hand over the vehicle KA-07/9113 to the Complainant are necessary:
Availing credit facility of Rs.3,15,000/- from the OP and paying margin amount of Rs.1,00,555/-, Complainant had purchased TATA 207 goods vehicle bearing Regn. No. KA-07/9113 on 04.02.2010 and it is also insured. According to the agreed terms, Complainant had to pay EMI of Rs.10,070/- starting from 09.10.2009 to 07.08.2013. On 09.10.2009 Complainant had paid Rs.19,800/- and he has paid regular installments upto 07.05.2011. In March 2010 he met with an accident and suffered fracture and hospitalized for 5 months. In a delay of 4 or 5 days he paid installments. Complainant was due for installment of June 2011. Even then, OP has repossessed the vehicle. When the Complainant contacted the OP, OP wanted payment of entire installments due to them. Notice was issued on 25.08.2011. On 05.01.2012, letter was given by a stranger to the Complainant wherein he learnt that as on 22.12.2011 Complainant was due for Rs.2,75,400/- and if it is not paid, vehicle will be put in auction. Hence the complaint.
2. In this case OP2 though served with notice remained absent throughout the proceedings. OP1 engaged the services of an Advocate on 14.02.2012 and till date in spite of adjourning the cases even on payment of costs, OP1 never cared to file version. Hence his prayer made today for adjournment is rejected as he has neither paid the costs nor filed version. Under Regulation, within 90 days from the date of filing the Complaint it has to be disposed off. The attitude of OP1 is only to drag on the proceedings. Hence his prayer was rejected.
3. Complainant filed Memo stating that his Complaint and the documents be read as his evidence. Heard.
4. The points that arise for our consideration are:
(A) Whether there is deficiency in service ?
(B) What order ?
5. Our findings are:
(A) Positive
(B) As per detailed order for the following reasons
REASONS
6. Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the documents on record, it is seen that the Complainant had purchased TATA 207 goods vehicle bearing Regn. No. KA-07/9113 on 04.02.2010 obtaining certain financial assistance from OP1 and taken delivery of the vehicle on 10.10.2009. As per the payment schedule, Complainant had to pay Rs.10,290/- on 07.11.2009 and Rs.10,070/- every month till 07.09.2013 without committing any default in payment of installments.
7. The case of the Complainant is that he had paid Rs.19,800/- on 0910.2009 and paid installments upto March 2010 regularly. The Complainant has produced receipts showing the dates on which payment made and the amount, thus:-
Date of payment | Amount paid |
09.10.2009 | 19,800 |
07.11.2009 | 10,300 |
07.12.2009 | 10,070 |
07.01.2010 | 10,070 |
04.03.2010 | 10,170 |
20.04.2010 | 10,100 |
22.05.2010 | 10,070 |
30.06.2010 | 10,070 |
28.08.2010 | 10,070 |
30.09.2010 | 20,000 |
28.10.2010 | 20,000 |
08.12.2010 | 10,100/- |
25.05.2011 | 50,000/- |
Apart from these, there are no other Receipts that have been produced much less stated. This clearly goes to show that complainant was not in the habit of paying the EMIs regularly. He was defaulting every month and paying as and when he deemed fit. According to the payment schedule, on 7th of every month he has to pay Rs.10,070/-, but that has not been paid by the Complainant.
8. Anyway, the vehicle is repossessed and it is not disputed. The Complainant ever stated when the vehicle was repossessed? On what date it was repossessed? Complainant also never stated when he met OP? when he demanded return of vehicle?
9. Complainant says that a stranger gave him a letter and then he came to know that notice was issued to him demanding Rs.2,75,400/- + parking charges upto 22.12.2011. Complainant never stated about this stranger who has given the notice. Anyway, notice produced by the Complainant clearly goes to show that on 22.12.2011 OP has issued notice demanding him to pay the money which was due.
10. In any event, OP demanded whole amount and not the balance of EMI and penal interest & late fee charges. If OP demanded EMI and late fee charges and penal interest, that would have sufficed, but demanding whole amount that too from agriculturist is nothing but deficiency in service. Hence we hold the point accordingly and pass the following order:
ORDER
1. Complaint is allowed in part.
2. OP is directed to notify the EMI pending and the late fee which is due on 07.04.2012 within 7 days.
3. Complainant is directed to pay EMI dues as on 07.04.2012 with all penal interest & late fee charges within 15 days from today.
4. On receipt of the said amount OP shall deliver back the vehicle to the Complainant within 15 days therefrom.
5. Send copy of the Order to the parties concerned free of cost.
6. Return extra sets to the parties concerned under Regulation 20(3) of Consumer Protection Regulations 2005.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this the 16th day of April 2012)
T. NAGARAJA K.G.SHANTALA H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO
Member Member President
SSS
