DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM  PALAKKAD

Dated this the   28 ^th day of October 2017

Present   : Smt.Shiny.P.R. President

               : Smt.Suma.K.P.  Member                                 Date of filing:  31/08/2013

               : Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member

                                                               (C.C.No.146/2013)

Jameela.V.U,

D/o Mohammed,

5/361, Kaliparambil House,

Mannarkkad 678 597.                                                             -           Complainant

(Adv.M.Muhammed Musthafa)

 V/s

1. The Manager

    Rishab Finance 47,

    Kalathi Pillai Street,

    Sowcarpet, Chennai,

    600 079, Tamil Nadu

2.  The Manager,

     Vardhman Finance,

     633/199, Poonamalliee High Road,

     Aminjikarai, Chennai,

     Tamil Nadu 600 029.

3.  V.M.Kabeer,

     Collection Agent of Rishab Finance &

     Vardhaman Finance,

     Tavakkal Manzil,

     Kammanthara, Vadakkancherry (Po),

     Palakkad.

4.  Anoop,

     Collection Agent of V.M.Kabeer,

     C/o Tavakkal Manzil,

     Kammanthara, Vadakkancherry (PO),

     Palakkad.                                                                           -           Opposite parties

  (Adv.Adv.K.Dhananjayan & Sunish.K.Abraham)  

O R D E R

By Smt.Shiny.P.R, President,

Brief facts of the complaint:-

            The complainant availed loan for Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) from the 1^st opposite party on 02.11.2009 for purchasing a Stage Carrier Bus bearing Registration Number KL 9M-5779.  The 2^nd opposite party is the subsidiary business associates of the 1^st opposite party.  The 3^rd opposite party is the finance agent of the 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties in Palakkad District who deals in arranging the finance to the customers and collecting the amount due from the customers and repaying same to the 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties.  The 4^th opposite party is the agent of the 3^rd opposite party who deals in collecting the dues from the customers for and on behalf of the other opposite parties.  The said bus is purchased and the finance is availed by the complainant to find her livelihood from the income derived from the bus service.  Complainant submitted that as per the agreement the complainant has to repay the loan amount with interest by 20 monthly installments @ Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) per month. After that, the complainant was in financial crisis and she was able to repay loan in frequent intervals but not in accordance with the loan tenure. Complainant so far repaid a sum of Rs.3,85,000/- (Rupees three lakhs eighty five thousand only) to the opposite parties 1 & 2 through the opposite parties 3 & 4 as per the direction of the 1^st opposite party.  At the time of availing loan from the opposite parties, blank signed cheque leaves and stamp papers and revenue stamp affixed papers of the complainant and her husband were collected from the complainant by opposite parties.  They also obtained signatures of the complainant and her husband in printed papers having unfilled columns.  The complainant further submitted that all the installments were properly paid and the officers of the opposite parties were reluctant to give proper receipt to the payments made by the complainant.  On 01.08.2013, the complainant approached the opposite parties through her Manager, Mr.Suresh to settle the loan by paying a lump sum amount of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) due to them and to get return the original RC book, no objection papers and bank cheques and papers of the complainant and her husband.  At that time, the opposite parties were taken back the original receipts showing repayments from the complainant saying that the same are necessary for verification of accounts. Then they told that complainant has to pay an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakhs only) to settle the transaction and further threatened that if the said excess amount is not repaid, they will fabricate false documents by using the blank signed papers and cheques and they will file false case against the complainant and her husband.  Complainant further submitted that due to the acts of these opposite parties complainant suffered a lot of mental agony.  The opposite parties committed deficiency in service by not handing over the original RC of the vehicle and the blank signed cheques and papers of the complainant and her husband in spite of the readiness and willingness to close and settle the transaction by repaying the dues actually liable by the complainant in law. Hence the complaint. Complainant prays for an order directing opposite parties

1.  to pay  an amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) towards the compensation for deficiency in service
2. to return the original RC of the vehicle, blank signed cheques and papers of the complainant and her husband and other relevant documents to cancel the HP endorsement on the RC Book and
3.  the cost of the proceedings to the complainant.

Complaint was admitted and issued notice to opposite parties. Opposite parties entered

appearance and filed their version.

1^st and 3^rd opposite parties contended that complainant has availed a loan of Rs.5,68,000/-

from them to purchase stage carriage a bus bearing Reg.No. KL9/M 5779.  For this purpose she has entered into a hypothecation agreement with opposite parties 1 & 3.  The complainant has executed the hypothecation agreement after knowing and reading and understanding all the terms and condition.  The complainant has agreed for all the terms and conditions including the schedule of payment.  The said hypothecation with opposite parties is entered in the RC book of the vehicle as per law.  As per the payment schedule the complainant is duty bound and is liable to pay and remit 20 EMIs @ Rs.20,000/-each and 10 EMIs @ Rs.16,800/- each-.    The said agreement is executed on 02.11.2009.  The terms of loan and hypothecation is fixed as 30 EMIs, so the H.P agreement will terminate on 02.05.2012. Opposite parties further contended that the complainant has defaulted the EMIs. The complainant was not at all prompt and regular in remitting the EMIs.  In such circumstances, the opposite parties have acquired a right to collect 36 % of interest from the complainant.  The release of hypothecation of the complainant would be possible only after clearing the entire dues by the complainant.  The opposite parties have never collected cheque leaves either written or unwritten or any papers either of the complainant or of her husband at any point of time.  These opposite parties have never committed any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice as alleged by the complainant.  It is a well established position of law that if a person seeks an equitable relief from a court of law he/she should come with clean hands.  As the complainant has deliberately and with enough malice has committed breach of contract, these opposite parties reserve the right to take any lawful actions against the complainant for the loss sustained to these opposite parties.  Hence the complaint is to be dismissed with exemplary cost. 

            2^nd opposite party adopts the very same crucial contentions raised by the opposite parties 1 and 3.  2^nd opposite party further contended that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and this opposite party.  This opposite party is a total stranger to this transaction between the complainant and the opposite parties.  There is no deficiency of service from the part of 2^nd  opposite party.  Hence complaint is to be dismissed.  

        4^th opposite party also adopts the very same crucial contentions raised by the opposite parties 1 and 3. 4^th opposite  party contended that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and this opposite party.  This opposite party is a total stranger to this transaction between the complainant and the opposite parties.  There is no deficiency of service from the part of 4^th  opposite party.  Hence complaint is to be dismissed.

Complainant and opposite parties filed their respective chief affidavit. Exts. A1 to A4 marked from the side of complainant and Exts. B1and B2 were marked from the side of the opposite parties. Complainant was examined as PW1. Witness from the part of complainant was examined as PW2. 3^rd opposite party was examined as DW1.

Issues that arise for consideration:

           1. Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties?

     2. If so, what is the relief and cost?

Issues No.1 & 2

Ext. B1 and B2 show that the loan amount was Rs. 5,68,000/-.   Complainant submitted that she has taken loan for an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the opposite parties. complainant had not produced any document to show that she had availed loan for Rs. 2,00,000/- from the opposite parties and repaid Rs. 3,85,000/- to the opposite parties. Entries on Ext.B1 shows that the first payment was made on 21.01.2010 instead of  02.12.2009 and the last payment was made on 27-6-2013. And it is also revealed that complainant had paid only Rs,.3,00,500/- to the opposite party till 27-6-2013. From this it is revealed that the complainant was not paid installment as per the terms and conditions of  Ext. B2 agreement.  

In the complaint, complainant submitted that at the time of availing loan from the opposite parties, blank signed cheque leaves and stamp papers and revenue stamp affixed papers of the complainant and her husband were given by the complainant to opposite parties and also opposite parties  obtained signatures of the complainant and her husband in printed papers having unfilled columns. Signatures of the complainant in Ext.B2 were admitted by the complainant at the time of examination. It is the duty of the complainant to read over all documents and thereafter it should fix the signatures. Hence allegations such as opposite parties have obtained signatures of the complainant and her husband in printed papers having unfilled columns cannot not be taken into consideration.

            At the time of cross examination PW2 produced the receipt for Rs.3,85,000/- for marking the document as Ext. A5. But the marking of the said document was objected by the opposite parties.  On the perusal of Ext. A5 it is revealed that this document is silent about to whom and for what purpose it was issued.  Hence this document also cannot be taken into consideration.

According to complainant she had paid an amount of Rs. 3,85,000/- to the opposite parties. But, Ext A3 series(1) to (4)receipts  show that Rs 20,000/- was paid to 4^th opposite party through bank and (5) to (13) receipts  show that Rs.50,000/- was paid to the account of 2^nd opposite party vardhaman finance. But  Ext.A3 series (14) to (16) receipts  show that Rs. 23,000/- was paid to the account of  Thaniml  Chhajed, not a party to the complaint.

Ext.A2 series 12 in numbers show that the opposite parties received Rs 2,07,500/- from the complainant for which they have issued receipts to the complainant.  But at the time of cross examination PW2 deposed that the receipts which were issued by the opposite parties for Rs. 3,85,000/- were taken back by the opposite parties for verification. Complainant has filed interim application for the cause production of original receipts for the payment made by the complainant. Opposite parties have filed affidavit stating that all the original receipts are already issued to the complainant, thus the documents are not in their custody and thus unable to produce them. But, the complainant himself produced some of those documents before the Forum at the time of evidence and marked as Ext A2 series. This evident that the complainant came before the Forum without clean hands.   Under the above circumstances we are of the view that in order to justify defaults in loan repayment, the complainant has filed the present false and fictitious complainant.  The complainant is not entitled for the reliefs as claimed in the complaint.  Hence complaint dismissed.  

Pronounced in the open court on this the 28^th day of October 2017.

                                                                                                                                 Sd/-

                           Shiny.P.R.

                          President 

                                  Sd/-       

                          Suma.K.P.

                           Member

            Sd/-

             V.P.Anantha Narayanan

                           Member

Appendix

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1            -  Photo copy of RC Book & pollution Certificate

Ext.A2 series   -  Receipts issued by Rishab Finacne, Chennai to the complainant (12 No’s)

Ext.A3 series   -  Original Cash Deposit Slip (16 No’s)

Ext.A4                        - Computer output/Account statement issued by Rishab Finance

Ext.A5                        - Receipt marked with objection

Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite parties

Ext.B1 -  Payment details of loan amount

Ext.B2 -  Higher Purchase Agreement issued to the complainant

Witness examined on the side of complainant

PW1    -  Jameela.V.U

PW2    -  Suresh.P.P

Witness examined on the side of opposite party

DW1   -  Kabeer.V.M

Cost   

            Nil