Date of Filing : 13.12.2011
Date of Order : 27.03.2012
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR
Dated 27th MARCH 2012
PRESENT
Sri. H.V. RAMACHANDRA RAO, B.Sc., BL, ……. PRESIDENT
Sri. T.NAGARAJA, B.Sc., LLB. …….. MEMBER
Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, B.A., LLB. …….. MEMBER
CC No. 220 / 2011
M.Nagabooshana Gowda,
S/o. Late Mune Gowda,
Aged about 45 years, Agriculturist,
Melthayalur, Thayalur Hobli,
Mulbagal Taluk.
(By Sri. V. Shankarappa, Adv.) ……. Complainant
V/s.
1. The Manager,
L&T Finance Ltd.,
The Metropolitan, 8th Floor, C-26/C-27,
‘E’ Block, Bandra Kula Complex, Bandra East,
Mumbai – 400 051.
2. The Manager,
L&T House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Estate,
Mumbai – 400 001.
3. The Manager,
L&T Finance Ltd., Monork Ramachari,
No. 3-E 4th Floor, 7th ‘C’ Main, 3rd Cross,
3rd Industrial Block, Koramangala,
Bangalore – 560 034.
(By Sama Rangappa, Adv.) …… Opposite Parties
ORDER
By Sri. H.V. RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT
The brief antecedents that lead to the filing of the Complainant made u/s. 12 of the C.P. Act seeking direction to the OP to pay to the Complainant Rs.2,00,000/- and return 12 Cheques are necessary:
Complainant entered into Loan-cum-Hypothecation agreement with the Ops on 31.03.2011 and purchased a Tractor bearing Registration No. KA-07/T-9578. Due to the failure of rain and crops, Complainant was unable to repay the monthly installments regularly. On 10.02.2011, OP3 has issued notice directing the Complainant to pay Rs.3,42,021/- within 7 days. Again it has issued notice on 11.02.2011 seeking payment of Rs.78,888/-. On receipt of both the notices, Complainant approached OP3 with Rs.78,888/-, but Ops refused to receive the same and said that the vehicle has already been sold. Complainant has not received any intimation from the Ops that the vehicle has been sold to one Mr. B.M. Ramesh for Rs.3,58,000/-. Complainant had purchased the Tractor from M/s. R.K. Tractors & Farm Equipments. Subsequently he has spent Rs.75,000/- for extra fittings. Complainant is ready to repay the loan amount. Ops, behind the back of the Complainant, without his knowledge, have sold the Tractor for a fancy price. Complainant has sustained heavy loss and greater loss in selling price. Complainant issued notice to the Ops, but they have not complied. Hence the Complaint.
2. In brief version of the Ops are:-
Complainant had approached M/s. R.K. Tractors & Farm Equipments for purchase of Massey Fergusion Tractor 1035 and raised the quotation for Rs.4,37,510/- and approached OP3 and requested for sanction of loan. After due consideration, Ops have agreed to finance the Complainant. Thereafter, Complainant has paid Rs.1,37,510/- towards margin money and executed hypothecation agreement and terms & condition letter dtd. 31.03.2010 and agreed to pay the loan sanctioned amount in 36 months and quarterly installments of Rs.34,565/- with interest @ 36% P.A. and hypothecated the said Tractor with the Ops. The loan amount has been paid to R.K. Tractors, Kolar who delivered the Tractor to the Complainant. Complainant failed to repay the loan installments. Due to that default, Ops have issued notice to the Complainant on 26.10.2010, the installment due of Rs.73,277/-. On 11.02.2011, Ops have also issued registered legal notice to the Complainant calling upon him to pay the dues to the Ops. As there was no other alternative, Ops have seized the vehicle in question which was hypothecated to them. On 10.02.2011, Ops have issued notice with regard to selling of the Tractor, but Complainant has not paid the dues. Four members have offered for purchase of the said Tractor and ultimately one Mr. B.M. Ramesh has purchased the vehicle in the auction who has offered Rs.3,58,000/- and it was sold to him on 11.03.2011 and the amount has been adjusted to the loan amount. Ops have not committed any deficiency in service. Ops have given sufficient opportunities to the Complainant to discharge the loan and given sufficient notices. On 10.02.2011, Ops have issued notice to the Complainant directing him to pay Rs.3,42,021/- within 7 days towards full & final settlement of the amount due. It has issued another notice on 11.02.2011 to the Complainant and to guarantor directing them to repay Rs.78,888/-. All the allegations to the contrary are denied.
3. To substantiate their respective cases, parties had filed respective affidavits and documents. Complainant had filed written arguments. Arguments were heard.
4. The points that arise for our consideration are:
POINTS
(A) Whether there is deficiency inservice
(B) What Order ?
5. Our answers for the above points are:
(A) Affirmative
(B) As per detailed order for the following reasons
REASONS
6. Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the affidavits and documents on record, it is an admitted fact that the Complainant had obtained quotation on 18.03.2010 from M/s. R.K. Tractors & Farm Equipment with respect to Tractor for Rs.4,37,510/-, approached OPs in this regard, executed Loan-cum-Hypothecation agreement / terms & conditions, purchased the Tractor in question, paid some amount from his pocket, agreed to repay loan with certain EMIs and he failed to pay EMIs because of various reasons of his own.
7. It s also an undisputed fact that on 01.10.2010 notice was issued to the Complainant by the Ops stating that several notices have been given to the Complainant regarding the payment of dues and as on that date remaining balance of EMI were Rs.73,277/- and this has to be paid immediately, failing which they will take cohersive action under the agreement. This documents is produced by both the parties. That means, Ops have given enough opportunities to the Complainant to repay the amount due.
8. Further, it is an admitted fact that on 10.02.2011 Ops have issued notice to the Complainant that too because of non payment of dues they have repossessed the vehicle, Complainant has surrendered the possession of the vehicle on 02.02.2011 and they called the Complainant to pay the amount due, failing which they are going to sell the vehicle in question in “as is where is” basis. That means, Ops have taken the possession of the vehicle on 02.02.2011. It is an admitted fact that before taking possession of the vehicle on 02.02.1011, Ops have not intimated to the Complainant what is the due as on that date and has not given any opportunity to the Complainant to pay the amount due, failing which they will repossess the vehicle. To this extent, there is deficiency in service.
9. However, Ops have issued notice to the Complainant on 01.10.2010 stating that only certain amount is due and if it is not paid they will take cohersive action that’s all. They never stated the whole amount due, but stated in respect of installment that opportunity has not been given.
10. Even after the notice dtd. 10.02.2011, the Complainant had not gone to the OPs and not paid the money due to them as per the terms of the Loan-cum-Hypothecation agreement. When the Complainant is at default in paying the amount, Ops can be repossessed the vehicle for the whole amount due and not only installments due as on that date, but the whole loan amount that is due as on date they can repossess and sold the Tractor.
11. Hence, under these circumstances, for the deficiency in service herein, there is no proof to show that the Complainant was having liquid cash to pay the amount of installments or cash as claimed in the notice dtd. 10.02.2011. Complainant admits that he is due Rs.3,42,021/- as on that date. That means, Complainant was not in a position to pay the loan amount. He has committed default in paying the installments. OP is entitled to recover the whole loan amount as per the terms of the Loan-cum-Hypothecation agreement. Now the loan is discharged and nothing is due to the Ops. Because of non issue of repossession notice, if we direct OP to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as costs of this litigation, that will meet ends of justice. Hence, we hold the above points accordingly and pass the following order:
ORDER
1. Complaint is allowed in part.
2. Ops are directed to pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation within 30 days from the date of this order.
3. Ops are also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as costs of this litigation to the Complainant.
4. Ops are further directed to send the amount to the Complainant as ordered at (2) & (3) above by Demand Draft through RPAD and submit to this Forum the compliance report with necessary documents within 45 days.
5. Send copy of this Order to the parties free of costs.
6. Return extra sets to the parties concerned under the Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer Protection Regulations 2005.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this the 27th day of March 2012.
T. NAGARAJA K.G.SHANTALA H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO
Member Member President
SSS
