BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT PUDUCHERRY
THURSDAY, the 9th day of November, 2017
FIRST APPPEAL No. 10/2016
K. Kalpana, W/o R.Krishnan,
Rep. by her Power Agent
R.Krishnan, No.39, Kannadiar St.,
Karaikal. ……….. Appellant
Vs.
1. The Manager,
Sri Balaji Finance,
No.128/2, North Car Street,
Thiruchencode 637 211,
Namakkal District, T.N.
2. Sri Balaji Finance,
No.1, First Floor, 6th Cross St.,
Sundaramoorthy Vinayagapuram,
Villianur, Puducherry, rep. by its
Authroised Power Agent ………… Respondents
(On appeal against the order passed in C.C.No.20/2012, dt.18.12.2015 by District Forum, Puducherry)
C.C.No.20/2012
K. Kalpana, W/o R.Krishnan,
Rep. by her Power Agent
R.Krishnan, No.39, Kannadiar St.,
Karaikal. ……….. Complainant
Vs.
1. The Manager,
Sri Balaji Finance,
No.128/2, North Car Street,
Thiruchencode 637 211,
Namakkal District, T.N.
2. Sri Balaji Finance,
No.1, First Floor, 6th Cross St.,
Sundaramoorthy Vinayagapuram,
Villianur, Puducherry, rep. by its
Authroised Power Agent ………… Opposite Parties
BEFORE:
HON’BLE THIRU JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN,
PRESIDENT
THIRU. S.TIROUGNANASSAMBANDANE,
MEMBER
FOR THE APPELLANT:
Tvl. T.Durai & D.Amirtharajan,
Advocates, Mayiladuthurai.
FOR THE RESPONDENTS:
Mr. M.Vengada Baraneeswaran,
Mrs. S.Hemambujam,
Mrs.K.Bhavani, Mrs.S.Meera,
Mr.S.Murugan and
Mr.K.Nilacandane, Advocates, Puducherry – For R1.
R2- Exparte
O R D E R
Though the matter has been listed on several occasions for the arguments of 1st respondent, none represents for 1st respondent. The 2nd respondent has already been set exparte.
2. This appeal is directed against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Puducherry, dated 18.12.2015 made in C.C.20/2012.
3. The complainant before the District Forum is the appellant herein and the opposite parties thereon are the respondents.
4. The parties are referred to in the same position as they have been referred before the District Forum for the sake of convenience.
5. The short matrix of the matter is set out hereunder:
The complainant mortgaged her tractor bearing Regn.No.PY-02/A-8904 and its tipper bearing Regn.No.PY-02/0396 with the opposite parties Finance Company on 17.10.2008 and got a loan of Rs.1,50,000/-. Though the complainant had paid the entire amount, the opposite parties have not returned the original Hire Purchase Agreement, two unfilled promissory notes, four signed blank papers and the original Registration Certificate for the Tractor and Tipper. Further, No Objection Certificate was not given by the opposite parties. Therefore, the complainant preferred complaint before the District Forum after causing notice to opposite parties.
6. Reply version has been filed only by 1st opposite party. Apart from saying that the amount has not been paid, it is stated that no blank cheques have been obtained from the complainant. It is also stated that the original R.C. book has been given to the complainant immediately after execution of hire purchase agreement. Thus, the reply version sought for the dismissal of the complainant.
7. Before the District Forum, the Power Agent of the complainant one Mr. Krishnan, husband of the complainant, was examined as CW1 and 15 documents have been filed which were marked as Exs.C1 to C15. On behalf of opposite parties, no witnesses were examined and no document has been filed.
8. The District Forum framed the following four points for determination:
1. Whether the complainant is a consumer?
2. Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complainant?
3. Whether any deficiency in service attributed by the Opposite Parties?
4. To what relief, the complainant is entitled?
9. On the first point whether the complainant is a consumer, the District Forum found that the complainant is a consumer and on the second point whether the Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complainant, it has been found that the District Forum has got jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. On the third point whether any deficiency in service attributed by the Opposite Parties, the District Forum found that there is deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. On the Fourth point, the District Forum held that the opposite parties shall return the original Hire Purchase Agreement and other documents set out therein to the complainant. It has also directed the 2st opposite party to issue N.O.C. after cancelling the hire purchase agreement. It also directed the opposite party to pay a compensation of Rs.20,000/- for mental agony and deficiency in service and to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards costs of the proceedings.
10. As stated already, the present appeal has been filed by the complainant alleging that the District Forum has not awarded anything towards monetary loss to her.
11. We have gone through the entire pleadings, evidence on record, documents filed on behalf of the complainant and also heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Though several opportunities have been given to the counsel appearing for the 1st opposite party, the said chances have not been availed. The 2nd opposite party remained absent and set exparte. Therefore, we are constrained to pass order basing upon the materials that are available before us.
12. The main ground of attack of the 1st opposite party was that the R.C. book has been returned to the complainant and it is falsely alleged that the same has not been returned. In our considered view, the said stand taken by the 1st opposite party is unbelievable. The reasons being that, a legal notice has been caused on behalf of the complainant on 11.08.2011, as borne out by Ex.C11, and the same has been acknowledged by the opposite parties on 16.11.2011, as could be seen from Ex.C12. No reply has been given by 1st opposite party. Had the 1st opposite party returned the R.C. book and other documents to the complainant, definitely a reply would have been sent on behalf of 1st opposite party stating that those documents have already been given to the complainant. In the reply version, it is stated by 1st opposite party that after receiving the notice, they have contacted the complainant and the complainant has stated that the notice has been sent mistakenly. We are unable to accept the said explanation offered by 1st opposite party in the reply version. The said stand taken by the 1st opposite party, in our considered view, is an afterthought and the same has been taken only to escape from the liability of parting with the original hire purchase agreement and other documents. Therefore, as stated already, we are not persuaded by such reply given by the 1st opposite party in its reply version. Therefore, the 1st opposite party has to return all the documents which have been set out in the order of the District Forum, to the complainant.
13. Regarding loss of income claimed by the complainant is concerned, the District Forum, though has stated in its order in Para 13 that there is deficiency on the part of opposite parties which lead the complainant to suffer mental agony and loss of income, it has not awarded any amount towards loss of income. The complainant has claimed a sum of Rs.15,000/- p.m. towards loss said to have been suffered by her. But, unfortunately, no document is forthcoming on the side of the complainant to show the exact amount of loss suffered by the complainant. However, it does not mean that the complainant would not have suffered any loss of income. In view of the conduct of the opposite parties in retaining the hire purchase agreement and not giving N.O.C., the complainant would not have been in a position to use the tractor and tipper properly. Therefore, we are of the view that, though the complainant is not entitled to the amount claimed in the complaint, is entitled to a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two-Lakh only), which we arrived at tentatively.
14. The amount as well as the other amounts ordered as compensation for mental agony and costs along with the documents referred in the order of the District Forum shall be paid/furnished to the complainant within two months from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at 12% p.a. from the expiration of two months period till final payment. For getting back the documents, it is open to the complainant to take appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.
15. Thus, the appeal is allowed in part as indicated above. However, there is no cost in this appeal.
Dated this the 9th day of November, 2017
(Justice. K.VENKATARAMAN)
PRESIDENT
(S.TIROUGNANASSAMBANDANE)
MEMBER
