BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BAGALKOT.

COMPLAINT NO. 09/2017

DATE OF FILING: 19/01/2017
 

ORDER DATED: 27^th day of March, 2018

   P r e  s e n t: 

01) Smt. Sharada. K.                                                  President…

     B.A.LL.B. (Spl) 

02) Smt. Sumangala.C.Hadli.                            Lady Member…

                            B.A (Music)

                V/s

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY SMT.SHARADA.K.PRESIDENT

The complainant has filed this Complaint u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Parties (herein after referred in short as OPs) for seeking direction to OPs to issue No Due Certificate in respect of the vehicle No.KA 29/A-6998 in favour of complainant and Rs.90,000/- towards compensation, Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation and other reliefs deemed fit under the circumstances of the case.

2.    The brief facts of the case are as follows:

The complainant No.1 and 2 are the legal heirs of deceased Shrishaila S/o. Shivayya Hiremath complainant No.1 is a house wife complainant No.2 is a student of diploma college due to inconvenience to pay the fee complainant No.2 had been sent out of college he is Un-employed, Deceased Shrishaila Hiremath had approached to the O.P.No.1 for vehicle loan, bearing No.KA 29/A 6998 for his self employment to earn livelihood for his family.

          The O.P.No.1 had sanctioned a loan amount of Rs.13,03,000/- on 26/05/2013 and charged finance charges of Rs.6,83,600/- and this had to be paid in 60 monthly installment starting from 02/07/2013 end to 02/06/2018 monthly installment of Rs.33,110/- the said deceased paid the installment regularly to one Mr. Anand Kumar Angadi who is the recovery officer at Bagalkot, when the said officer not visited for recovery the deceased Shrishaila paid the installment to O.P.No.2 (Bank account No.5076115191 unfortunately on 29/08/2016 the said Shrishaila died in an accident at Vijayapura leaving behind complainant No.1 and 2 after the death of Shrishaila complainant No.1 and approached OP No.1 and requested to transfer the vehicle loan in the name of the complainant No.1 and requested OP No.1 to reduce the interest rate, since her husband died she is the only bread earner of the family, it is the only source of income complainant No.1 and 2 are depending on the said vehicle for earnings, OP No.1 not headed the request of complainant and demanded to pay the total amount outstanding of Rs.12,58,180/- till 02/06/2018 on the vehicle loan.

          Further complainant’s submits that, the O.P. No.1 collected the insurance policy toward the security for the loan from the main borrower deceased Shrishaila, the main borrower died, the balance of loan amount should be recovered by the insurance company if OP No.1 not do so it will be a burden on the OP No.1 to waive the entire balance amount. But OP No.1 is harassing and threatening the complainant that if they will not pay the entire amount of the above said vehicle loan OP No.1 will seize their vehicle and sell the same, hence complainant submits that OP No.1 and 2 made a deficiency in service towards the complainant No.1 and 2 and prayed to order against the OP No.1 for issuance of no due certificates and Rs.90,000/- towards the compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards the cost of the proceedings and other reliefs that forum deems fit.

3.      The Forum registered case issued notices to O.P No.1 and 2. After receipt of notice, OP’s appeared through their advocates before the Forum and filed the written version.

Brief facts of the Written Version of O.P.No.1 and 2:-

OP No.1 denied all the allegations made against him and submits that complainant had suppressed the material fact and further submits that the preliminary objection is that the complaint is not maintainable and OP No.1 submits that deceased Shrishaila availed a credit facility from OP No.1. But the loan amount is not paid by the complainant and expecting that they need NOC to transfer he vehicle without paying the remaining loan amount to OP No.1. Further submits that those who avail the loan and financial assistance their bonded duty to repay the amount accordance with the terms and conditions of contract.

Further OP No.1 submits that the vehicle question is used for commercial purpose it has been mention in the sanctioned letter and the vehicle had been hypothecated in favor of OP No.1 as per the loan agreement the monthly installment starting from 02/07/2013 till 02/06/2018 it has to be paid 60 monthly installment complainant No.1 husband try to pay 12 month installment and still  Rs.10,05,663.03/- is balance as on 24/04/2017 towards the closer of the loan amount.

OP No.1 submits that deceased availed the financial facility from them and his liable to discharge his liabilities towards the same, the death of the borrower does not absolve from the payment of dues and further submits that an insurance policy was issued the risk of accident of the vehicle and the same does not cover the death risk and even is to be believed and the same covers death risk the complainant’s are holding the policy they should approach the Insurance Company seeking for the claim. Hence, the claim of the complainant to seeking waver of the loan cannot be entertained the complainant’s if they want to retain the asset have to clear the dues and this OP submits that the complaint filed by the complainant is false, frivolous and imaginary and prayed to dismiss the same.

OP No.2 filed objection and submits that un-necessary made this OP No.2 as the party to the proceedings and this Hon’ble have not jurisdiction to try this complaint and moreover OP No.2 submits that this OP not have any knowledge about the same deceased was remitted the installment amount to this account and even complainant had produced the blank bank slips in this complaint. Hence OP No.2 submits that complainant against OP No.2 has to be dismissed with compensatory cost.

4.      The complainant has filed his chief affidavit along with 7 documents and 6 photo copy of the document, behalf of the complainant. The documents are as follows:-

List of Documents

1. Certified copy issued by RTO, Bagalkot Challan No.CN9823199 paid Rs.210 in the name of Shrishail Hiremath on dated 20/06/2017.
2. Certified copy issued by RTO, Bagalkot issued of clearance certified dated 22/06/2017.
3. Certified copy issued by RTO, Bagalkot Form No.29 dated 12/06/2017.
4. Certified copy issued by RTO, Bagalkot cancellation of hire purchase/ lease/hypnotization agreement No.5001245452 between Shrishail Hiremath and Tata Motors Finance Limited dated 30/05/2017.
5. Certified copy issued by RTO, Bagalkot Form No.35 dated 12/06/2017.
6. Certified copy issued by RTO, Bagalkot Endorsement issued by the Regional Transport Officer Navanagar, Bagalkot to RTO, R.R. Nagar, Bangalore and copy to Shrishail Hiremath related to Shri Aslam Ulllakhan for clearance certified dated 23/06/2017.
7. Certified copy of vehicle insurance.
8. Photo copy of the statement of account.
9. Photo copy of the death ceritificate
10. Photo copy of the Driving License.
11. Photo copy of the RC.
12. Photo copy of the PM report and challan.

On the other hand OP No.1 and 2 filed their Chief Affidavit respectively OP No.1 filed 2 documents Annexure R1 & R2.

1. Loan cum hypothecation agreement.

2. Another agreement dated 21/05/2013.

          5.      On the basis of above said pleading, oral and documentary evidence, the following points arises for adjudications are:

1. Whether the complainant proves that the complaint filed by this jurisdiction?

2. What order?

Our Answer to the above points are:-

          Point No.1- Negative.

          Point No.2- As per the final order.

-: R E A S O N S :-

6.  POINT NO.1:- The complaint of the complainant is that the husband of complainant No.1 and father of complainant No.2 availed credit facility from O.P.1 to purchase a vehicle for his livelihood. The borrower died in an accident during subsistence of loan.

OP No.1 had denied the allegations made by the complainants that the deceased had been insured by OP No.1 while sanctioning the loan for which OP No.1 had stated that the vehicle loan had been sanction by hypothecating the vehicle and vehicle had been insured there is a well settled act that the Financial institutions sanction the vehicle loan by hypothecating the vehicle and insuring the vehicle, but it is not mandatory that the borrowers life should be insured by the financier and also OP No.2 is a nationalized bank where OP No.1 holds his account, as the submission of the complainant that he had paid the installments by depositing the EMI’s in OP No.2’ bank but failed to produce the documentary evidence to prove the same a blank challan had been produced before the forum which doest carries any signature or amount mentioned nor the seal of the bank by which it is crystal clear that there is no transaction between the complainants and OP No.2 unnecessarily Op No.2 made party to the proceedings.

The complainants counsel produced the citations which are:-

1. Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Citicorp Maruti Finance Ltd., V/s S.Vijayalaxmi) disposed on 27.07.2017.
2. AIR 2012 Supreme Court 509.

The said citations are not applicable to this present Complaint.

7.      On perusal of all the documents on record we found that the office of OP No.1 lies in Belgaum which is out of the jurisdiction of this forum. Hence came to the conclusion that this complaint does not falls in the jurisdiction of this Forum since complaint is dismissed, we answer point No.1 is in Negative.

8. POINT NO.2:  For the reasons and discussion made above and finding on the above point, we proceed to pass the following:

:: ORDER ::

1. The Complaint is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

2. No order as to costs.
3. Send a copy of this Order to both parties free of cost.  

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court 27^th day of March, 2018)