(Smt. D. Nirmala, President (FAC))
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 details and actual calculation of loan amount, not to seize the vehicle till disposal of this case, to receive actual due amount and issue NOC to the complainant, to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and unfair trade practice, Rs.10,000/- towards costs of the complaint.
2. The averments of the complaint in brief are that:- The opposite party is a finance company limited. The complainant purchased a KMV TRACTOR bearing No.AP22 H 8283 model 2008 for his livelihood. The total vehicle cost is Rs.6,35,000/- (engine doser). The complainant has paid down payment of Rs.2,35,000/- and obtained a loan of Rs.4,00,000/- from the opposite party. The opposite party agreed to give loan on mortgage of land of the complainant. Accordingly the complainant mortgaged his land in Sy.No.423/1, extent Ac.2-00 situated at Mullamalla village of Atmakur Taluka. The OP sanctioned loan of Rs.4,00,000/- to the complainant in the month of February, 2008. Both the complainant and the opposite party entered into agreement. The complainant further stated that he has paid regularly from March, 2008 to January, 2012 i.e., an amount of Rs.4,96,000/- as per the terms and conditions of opposite party. The OP issued receipts. Thereafter the complainant approached OP for full and final settlement of loan amount in the month of March, 2012. The OP postponing the same and finally on August, 2012 intimated to the complainant to pay Rs.3,84,147/- as full and final settlement. The complainant surprised with figures and request the OP to give details of the final settlement. Till today they have not provided the details and threatening the complainant that they would seize the vehicle if the complainant has not paid the amount as stated by the OP. The complainant further submitted that the OP refused to receive the installments amount as per the terms and condition of agreement and demanding to pay entire loan amount at once. He further submitted that the due amount of loan is only for Rs.1,99,349/- but the OP shown wrong calculation and demanding to pay Rs.3,84,147/- which is against the law of land. Such act on part of the OP amounts to deficiency of service. Hence the present complaint is filed for the above said relief.
3. The OP filed his counter and denying the allegation made in the complaint and stated that this OP financed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to the complainant for purchasing tractor No.AP22 H 8283 under loan cum hypothecation agreement vide agreement No.TSLMAHBOOOO456 dated 3-3-2008. The complainant is regular in making payment of installment amount and he approached to this OP for full and final settlement and this OP have inflated the amount due and failed to give details to the complainant are incorrect. It is further submitted that the amount due by the complainant to the OP is roughly Rupees Two lakhs and the OP is demanding more amount than actually he is due is incorrect. As a matter of fact this OP demanding him to pay only the legitimate and actual amount is found to be due have explained to the complainant as to how the amount have so arrived but the complainant is not ready for payment of any amount to the OP. This OP further submitted that the complainant has obtained tyre loan and personal loans, they are called child loans in continuation of main loan cum hypothecation agreement. The complainant availed child loan by executing necessary documents in favour of the OP. The complainant is deposited an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- after filing the present complaint. The same is adjusted to his loan account. Now the complainant is due a sum of Rs.6,495/- in main loan account and Rs.161/-, Rs.71,750/- and Rs.89,922/- towards three loan account. The total due of the complainant to the OP under the above loan accounts is Rs.1,68,328/- as on 30-10-2012. The complainant suppressed the real facts and filed the present complaint. There is no deficiency of service on the part of this OP. Therefore the present complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.
4. During the enquiry, the complainant filed his affidavit evidence and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-23 and on the other hand the OP filed his affidavit evidence and got marked Exs.B-1 to B-9 on his behalf.
5. The points for determination are:-
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party towards the complainant?
(ii) Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief sought for by him?
(iii) To what effect?
6. The undisputed facts of the case are that the complainant availed a loan amount of Rs.4,00,000/- to purchase the tractor No.AP22 H 8283 under loan cum hypothecation agreement dated 3-3-2008.
7. Point Nos.1 and 2:- It is the case of the complainant that in order to eke out his livelihood the complainant has purchased LMV Tractor bearing No.AP22 H 8283, model 2008. The cost of the vehicle is Rs.6,35,000/-, out of which the complainant has paid down payment of Rs.2,35,000/- and the balance amount of Rs.4,00,000/- he availed finance assistance from OP. Accordingly both the complainant and the OP entered into under the loan cum hypothecation agreement vide agreement No.TSLMAHABOO456, dt.3-3-2008 and he has paid installment amounts regularly from March, 2008 to January, 2012. To support the said contention the complainant relied upon the documents Exs.A-4 to A-23. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel for the OP urged that besides the vehicle loan the complainant availed other loans also and he is irregular in making payment of installment amount. To support the said contention the OP relied upon the documents Exs.B-1 to B-9. The said Ex.A-4 is the statement of account and Exs.A-5 to A-23 are the receipts are passed by the OP towards installment amount paid by the complainant. The said Exs.A-4 to A-23 receipts reveals that the complainant is irregular in making payment of installment amount. Therefore, we find that the complainant is irregular in making payment of installment amount. Further, the Exs.B-1 to B-9 which are filed by the OP neither denied nor disputed by the complainant in his affidavit evidence or adduced any documentary evidence. In the absence of the same the contention raised by the learned counsel for the complainant that he is regular in making payment of installment is not tenable. Therefore we find that there is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant.
8. That the complainant has paid Rs.2,00,000/- as per the order in I.A.No.138/2012 to the OP. The said amount be adjusted to the loan account of complainant, if not adjusted by OP.
9. With the above said reasons, facts born out from the records, we find that the complainant failed to establish his claim under ground of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice against the opposite party. Hence we are of the opinion that the complainant is not entitled the relief sought for by him. The complaint is liable to be dismissed. Both the points are answered accordingly in favour of the opposite party and against the complaint.
In the result:- The complaint is dismissed without costs.
