Telangana

Mahbubnagar

CC/11/54

Mohd. Sharfuddin S/o Mohd. Moulana, age: 65 years - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, M/s Keerthi Auto Finance, Beside Maharaja Dabha - Opp.Party(s)

Sri K.C. Narsimulu

06 Sep 2011

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM AT MAHABUBNAGAR

Tuesday, the 6^th day of September, 2011 

                                                                   Present:- Sri P. Sridhara Rao, B.Sc., LL.B., President

                Sri A. Veerupakshi, B.A., LL.B., Member     

          Smt. D. Nirmala, B.Com., LL.B.,Member

C.C.NO. 54  Of   2011

Between:-

Mohd. Sharfuddin S/o Mohd. Moulana, age: 65 years, Occ: Petty Business, R/o H.No.5-10-50, Old Palamoor, Mahabubnagar.

                                                                    … Complainant

And

The Manager, M/s Keerthi Auto Finance, Beside Maharaja Dabha, N.H.No.7, Shadnagar, Mahabubnagar District. 

                                        … Opposite Party

 This C.C. coming on before us for final hearing on 29-8-2011 in the presence of Sri K.C. Narsimulu, Advocate, Mahabubnagar on behalf of the complainant and Sri N. Ramesh Babu and Sri G. Ravi Prakash, Advocates, Mahabubnagar for the opposite parties and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum made the following:   

O R D E R

 (Sri A. Veerupakshi, Member)

1.  This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking a direction to the opposite party to furnish the statement of account of the loan amount of the complainant and also to pay compensation for its failure of furnishing the statement besides costs of the complaint and in the meanwhile not to seize the Auto bearing No.AP22 W-4016 till disposal of this dispute.  

2. The averments of the complaint in brief are that:- The opposite party is the auto finance company having its branches at Mahabubnagar and so also at Shadnagar and subsequently the branch office at Mahabubnagar was shifted to Shadnagar. The complainant took finance of a sum of Rs.90,000/- from the opposite party besides making down payment of Rs.30,000/- and purchased the Auto from the opposite party agreeing to repay the loan with interest as fixed by the opposite party.  The Auto was delivered to the complainant on 10-9-2007 and he commenced making payment of the installments from 20-9-2007 @ Rs.3,550/- and altogether paid the amount for 30 monthly installments to the opposite party.  While the matter stood thus, the opposite party has issued a demand notice to the complainant demanding him to pay a further sum of Rs.30,000/- towards outstanding due at once or otherwise the Auto will be seized without any prior notice. Thereupon the complainant approached the opposite party, showed all the receipts passed by the opposite party and demanded him to furnish the statement of his loan account, but the opposite party did not take any care to verify the receipts.  Then the complainant got issued a legal notice on 2-12-2010 demanding the opposite party to furnish statement of account and ledger account sheet containing the payments made by him. Inspite of it the opposite party failed to furnish such information which amounts to deficiency of service on its part.  Thus the present complaint is filed for the aforesaid relief.

3. The opposite party filed counter denying the averments of the complaint and stated that there is no truth in the case of the complainant that he obtained loan of Rs.90,000/- on payment of down payment of Rs.30,000/- and purchased the Auto and paid the monthly installments to the opposite party, that in fact the complainant has got loan from Shrirama Transport Finance Company Limited, Secunderabad for purchase of Auto No.AP-09-F (TR)-2283 and executed the concerned papers in favour of his financer, and that this opposite party is no way concerned with the auto finance of the above vehicle.  It is further stated that the complainant is well aware of the said facts but with a malafide intention and for wrongful gain filed the present complaint against this opposite party with all false and make believable averments, and that the present case is bad for non joinder of necessary party to the case and hence the present case against this opposite party is not maintainable either on facts or on law and the same is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.        

4. Thereupon the complainant in support of his claim filed his affidavit evidence and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-33.  On the other hand, the opposite party in support of their contention filed affidavit evidence and got marked Ex.B-1.   

5.  The points for determination now are: 

1. Whether is there any deficiency on the part of the opposite party in 

          rendering service to the complainant as alleged?

     (ii)  Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief sought for by him? 

     (iii)  To what effect? 

6. Point Nos.1 and 2:- It is the case of the complainant that he took loan of Rs.90,000/- and also paid a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards down payment to the opposite party and purchased the Auto agreeing to repay the loan with interest as fixed by the opposite party.  The contention of the opposite party is that the complainant never obtained any such loan of Rs.90,000/- and made payment of Rs.30,000/- towards down payment to him and so also the complainant never paid any such monthly installments to him. The specific contention of the opposite party is that in fact the complainant made such transaction with Shrirama Transport Finance Company, Secunderabad for purchase of the Auto No.AP-09-F(TR)-2283 and accordingly executed all the necessary documents in favour of the said financer and therefore he is no way concerned with the said transaction.         In support of his contention the opposite party relied upon Ex.B-1 Form No.24 B-Register of Motor Vehicle.  A perusal of the recitals of Ex.B-1 clearly goes to show that the vehicle in question as stated to by the opposite party was purchased by the complainant under Hire Purchase Agreement from Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited, Secunderabad. The said fact is not disputed by the complainant at anywhere either in his affidavit evidence or through any other means.  If really there is any truth in the case of the complainant as alleged by him and he approached this Forum with clean hands he ought to have furnished the particulars of the Auto such as its registration number, chasis number, colour etc., either in his complaint or in his affidavit evidence. But the complainant failed to furnish any such particulars at anywhere either in the complaint or in his affidavit evidence or at least in the legal notice Ex.A-31 got issued by him to the opposite party and so also not disputed the genuineness of Ex.B-1 produced by the opposite party in support of their contention. That apart, the complainant also not mentioned the total number of installments and the rate of interest to be paid by him to the opposite party.  That itself shows that the complainant had not approached this Forum with clean hands.

7. It is the specific case of the complainant that the opposite party issued a demand notice demanding him to pay a further sum of Rs.32,000/- towards the due of the loan or otherwise he will seize the Auto from his possession.  It is the contention of the opposite party that when he is in no way concerned with the alleged transaction the question of issuing any demand notice by him will not arise and he never issued any such notice.  In view of the said defence set up by the opposite party the burden lies on the complainant to establish the fact that the opposite party issued such demand notice to him.  If really the complainant is in receipt of such demand notice from the opposite party he ought to have filed the same in the case.  But the complainant to the best reasons known to him failed to file such demand notice said to have been issued by the opposite party. So in the absence of filing of such notice the contention of the complainant that the opposite party demanded for a further sum of Rs.32,000/- is not tenable and cannot be accepted.  If really there is any such demand notice received by him from the opposite party he ought to have mentioned the same in his legal notice Ex.A-31 but there is no such fact mentioned in the legal notice Ex.A-31. Therefore the contention of the complainant that the opposite party issued demand notice demanding him to pay a further sum of Rs.32,000/- is only an improvement in order to suit his claim.  Hence this is also another part to come to the conclusion that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands.

8. It is the specific case of the complainant that on receipt of the alleged demand notice he approached the opposite party and shown all the receipts issued by it and demanded to furnish him the statement of account, but the opposite party failed to do so and thus such act on the part of the opposite party amounts to deficiency of service, as such he is seeking relief to direct the opposite party to furnish such statement of account besides payment of some compensation. As stated above, it is the specific contention of the opposite party that he is no way concerned with the alleged transaction, and that the alleged transaction took place between the complainant and Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited, Secunderabad and therefore the question of furnishing statement of account to the complainant does not arise.  Admittedly the complainant did not produce any proof to show that he approached the opposite party and demanded for furnishing him the statement of loan account.  As stated above, the complainant did not even file the said demand notice said to have been issued by the opposite party.  The whole grievance of the complainant against the opposite party is started from the time of receipt of the demand notice said to have been issued by the opposite party.  So, the complainant without filing of such demand notice said to have been issued by the opposite party and in the absence of any proof in that regard the complainant cannot allege any deficiency against the opposite party on the ground that the opposite party failed to furnish the required statement of the loan account.  In the absence of any such proof, we find that there is no truth in the complainant alleging deficiency against the opposite party. That apart, the complainant knowing fully well about the fact of his transaction with Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited, Secunderabad also failed to implead the same as a party to the present proceedings. The cumulative effect of all the above circumstances clearly appears that the complainant had not approached this Forum with clean hands.  Hence, for the reasons stated above, we hold that the complainant failed to establish the deficiency on the part of the opposite party in rendering service to him by non furnishing the statement of loan account, and therefore the complainant is not entitled for the reliefs sought for by him and thus the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  Both the points are answered accordingly in favour of the opposite party and against the complainant.     

9. Point No.3:- In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No order as to the costs.

        Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 6^th day of September, 2011.    

 

    I agree                                                                                       I agree                 

                                            

 MEMBER                                      MEMBER                             PRESIDENT                       

    Appendix of evidence

      List of Witness examined

On behalf of Complainant:                          On behalf of Opposite Party:   

- Nil -                                                                      - Nil -                                       

List of documents marked:-

On behalf of Complainant:-    

Ex.A-1: Original Receipt, dt.20.9.2007.

Ex.A-2: Original Receipt, dt.20.10.2007.

Ex.A-3: Original Receipt, dt.20.11.2007.   

Ex.A-4: Original Receipt, dt.20.12.2007.  

Ex.A-5: Original Receipt, dt.21.1.2008.    

Ex.A-6: Original Receipt, dt.21.2.2008.

Ex.A-7: Original Receipt, dt.24.3.2008.

Ex.A-8: Original Receipt, dt.26.4.2008.

Ex.A-9: Original Receipt, dt.27.5.2008.

Ex.A-10: Original Receipt, dt.2.8.2008.

Ex.A-11: Original Receipt, dt.9.9.2008.

Ex.A-12: Original Receipt, dt.11.10.2008.

Ex.A-13: Original Receipt, dt.15.11.2008.

Ex.A-14: Original Receipt, dt.17.11.2008.

Ex.A-15: Original Receipt, dt.24.12.2008.

Ex.A-16: Original Receipt, dt.20.1.2009.

Ex.A-17: Original Receipt, dt.19.2.2009.

Ex.A-18: Original Receipt, dt.27.4.2009.

Ex.A-19: Original Receipt, dt.18.4.2009.

Ex.A-20: Original Receipt, dt.25.6.2009.

Ex.A-21: Original Receipt, dt.30.7.2009.

Ex.A-22: Original Receipt, dt.19.9.2009.

Ex.A-23: Original Receipt, dt.9.11.2009.

Ex.A-24: Original Receipt, dt.28.1.2010.

Ex.A-25: Original Receipt, dt.13.4.2010.

Ex.A-26: Original Receipt, dt.25.5.2010.

Ex.A-27: Original Receipt, dt.7.7.2010.

Ex.A-28: Original Receipt, dt.26.8.2010.

Ex.A-29: Original Receipt, dt.14.10.2010.

Ex.A-30: Original Receipt, dt.15.11.2010.

Ex.A-31: Copy of Legal Notice, dt.2.12.2010.

Ex.A-32: Returned Postal Cover with Acknowledgement.

Ex.A-33: Photostat copy of Household Card.     

On behalf of OP.:                   

Ex.B-1: Copy of Form 24-B, Register of Motor Vehicle.          

                                                                                                                       

                                                                                           PRESIDENT                 

Copy to:-

1. Sri K.C. Narsimulu, Advocate, Mahabubnagar on behalf of the complainant.

2. Sri N. Ramesh Babu, and Sri G. Ravi Prakash, Advocates, Mahabubnagar for the  opposite parties.