Complaint filed on: 02-11-2015 Disposed on: 17-12-2016
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM,
OLD DC OFFICE COMPOUND, TUMAKURU-572 101
CC.No.126/2015
DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF DECEMBER 2016
SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K. BAL, LLM, PRESIDENT
SRI.D.SHIVAMAHADEVAIAH, B.A, LLB, MEMBER
SMT.GIRIJA, B.A., LADY MEMBER
Complainant: -
Shivaraju,
S/o. Narayanappa,
Aged about 28 years,
R/o. Jakkanahalli,
Beechanahalli post,
Dandinashivara Hobli, Turuvekere Taluk,
Tumakuru District
(By Advocate Sri.Mahesh.D.M)
V/s
Opposite party:-
The Manager,
Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd,
1st Floor, CR Complex, Call Tex Circle, BH Road, Tumakuru
(By Advocate Sri.M.S.Tharun Kumar)
ORDER
SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K. PRESIDENT
This complaint has filed by the complainant against the OP, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant prays to direct the OP finance company not to seize the vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA-44-4317 and also give some time to full and final settlement and not to impose excess amount of Rs.2,36,435=00 O.D.charges and interest and also direct the OP to return all the four blank signed Vysya Bank cheques and original RC book, in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is as under.
The complainant has availed a loan of Rs.4,50,000=00 from the OP Finance Company on 1-2-2012 and hypothecated his Geneo LMV Goods vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA-44-4317 and its Chassis No.MAVE2JFKC6A51952 and Engine No.IFC4A1405.
The complainant further submitted that, the 1st installment started on 1-3-2012. As per repayment schedule there are 47 installments and each installment was Rs.12,870=00 including interest, but the OP finance company has not disclosed the rate of interest.
The complainant further submitted that, for the security of loan, the OP has taken four blank ING Vysya bank cheques leaves of the complainant’s account and the said cheques are in the custody of the OP. The OP is trying to file a private complaint against the complainant.
The complainant further submitted that, he has paid Rs.4,11,000=00 and four installments are remaining. According to letter of agreement, the final installment date closes on 1-2-2016, but the OP is demanding more money of Rs.2,89,990=00 including interest and OD charges.
The complainant further submitted that, the OP has imposed more interest and demanded more OD charges and violated the conditions of letter of agreement and repayment schedule charges. The complainant submitted that, the OP giving a lot of mental harassment and tried to seize the vehicle. At the time of releasing the vehicle from the dealer, a mistake is done by the dealer and finance company in RC book hypothecation and is made in the name of Mahindra Finance Company. The OP Company tried to seize the vehicle with the help of private agencies and local police. The complainant is the only earning person in his family and he is solely depending upon the said vehicle. If the OP seize the vehicle, the complainant will be put great hardship, injury and damages which cannot be compensated by any means. Hence the present complaint is filed.
3. After service of notice, the OP has appeared through his counsel and filed objection contending interalia as under:
The complainant cannot invoke the provision of the CP Act, since he is not a consumer under the Act and this forum cannot decide the alleged dispute. The complainant is misusing and abusing the process, he himself being a party to the contract and having committed breach of the terms of the contract. The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and it is liable to be dismissed.
The OP further submitted that, the complainant obtained a loan a sum of Rs.4,50,000=00 and the complainant had agreed to repay the loan amount along with interest in 47 equal monthly installments amounting to Rs.12,870=00 each, commencing from 31-1-2012 to 1-2-2016. Accordingly an agreement was entered into between the parties by hypothecating the vehicle in favour of OP Company. It is the duty of the complainant to pay the installments amount regularly without any default. The complainant became a defaulter in payment of the monthly installments, under such circumstances the OP Company sent a final call letter to the complainant on 4-8-2014 by RPAD and made the demand to the complainant that to pay total due sum of Rs.95,473=00 within 7 days from the date of receipt of notice dated 4-8-2014, but the complainant failed to pay the said amount to OP Company. Another final call letter to the complainant on 3-12-2014 by RPAD and made the demand to the complainant that to pay total due a sum of Rs.1,37,350=00 within 7 days from the date of receipt of notice dated 3-12-2014, but the complainant failed to pay the said notice amount to the OP company. Since the OP has not committed deficiency in service, the question of payment of any compensation under any circumstances. There is no cause of action to file the complaint.
The OP further submitted that, on 23-5-2016 issued per sale letter issued to the complainant, but the complainant has not paid any installments. On 23-5-2016 post-seizure intimation was communicated to Kyathasandra police, Tumakuru and OP Company has issued copy of the authorization letter to seize the vehicle to Panchamukki Enterprises on 23-5-2016. The copy of the seizure surrender report dated 23-5-2016 and copy is sent to the complainant. There is deficiency of service rendered by the OP Company to the complainant. Hence it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost, in the interest of justice and equity.
5. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and OP have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant has produced documents along with the complaint, which were marked as Ex-C1 to 28. The OP has produced documents, which were marked as EX-R1 to R17. We have heard the arguments of both parties and perused the documents produced by both parties and posted the case for orders.
6. Based on the above materials, the following points will arise for our consideration.
- Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP as alleged by the complainant?
- What Order?
7. Our findings on the above points are;
Point no.1: In the negative
Point no.2: As per the final order below.
REASONS
8. On perusal of the pleadings, affidavit evidence, objections of the OP and documents produced by both parties, it is an admitted fact that, on 31-1-2012 the complainant had availed a loan of Rs.4,50,000=00 from the OP Company for his Geneo LMV Goods vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA-44-2317, Chassis No.MAVE2JFKC6A51952 and Engine No.IFC4A14005 and the same was hypothecated the said vehicle to the OP company. It is also an admitted fact that, as per the repayment schedule, there were 47 installments and each payable installment of Rs.12,870=00 including interest and installments commencing from 1-3-2012 to 1-1-2016.
9. The main contention of the complainant is that, he had already paid Rs.4,11,000=00 to the OP and he has to pay only remaining four installments. The OP finance company has imposed more interest and demanded for more OD charges and violated the conditions of the letter of agreement and repayment schedule charges.
10. The OP submitted that, the complainant became a defaulter in paying the installment of loan and on 4-8-2014 the OP sent a final call letter to the complainant to pay total due of sum of Rs.95,473=00, but the complainant has failed to pay the said amount and again on 3-12-2014 the OP sent another final call letter to the complainant to pay total due a sum of Rs.1,37,350=00, but the complainant has failed to pay the installment.
11. The OP have produced the copy of loan agreement pertaining to the vehicle finance signed by both complainant and OP. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement, it is made clear that the complainant is liable to pay interest, processing and service charges and under heading repayment, it is made clear that the complainant shall pay to the OP all sums of money and the complainant shall be liable to pay instalments as stipulated in the schedule of agreement and in the event of default in the payment of instalments as per payment schedule the OP shall be entitled to take the possession of vehicle. On failure of the complainant to fulfill the condition the OP shall seize the vehicle without further notice to the complainant.
12. The objection of the OP that, the complainant has become chronic defaulter in paying EMI as per the payment schedule and the OP have seized the vehicle with the knowledge of the complainant is corroborated by the copies of loan agreement produced by the OP, repayment schedule and copies of payment receipts and account statement of the complainant and two final call letter to the complainant dated 4-8-2014 and 3-12-2014 issued by the OP praying to pay the balance installment amount.
13. On perusal of the documentary evidence of both parties, it is crystal clear that, the complainant had availed a vehicle loan from the OP and accordingly loan agreement was entered into between the complainant and OP and the complainant has agreed to repay the said loan amount in 47 equal monthly instalments of Rs.12,870=00 commencing from 1-3-2012 to 1-1-2016 and it was the duty of the complainant to honour the terms and conditions of the loan agreement by paying EMIs regularly as per the payment schedule. The complainant started committing default in paying the installments to OP and he paid the amount to OP as per his whims and fancies and not as per payment schedule and cheques issued by the complainant towards payment of installments were bounced. Inspite of several demands by OP, the complainant did not come forward to pay the balance amount.
14. The OP has acted in accordance with the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. As per the payment schedule, the complainant has failed to make payment, but the complainant paid the amount as per his convenience it amounts to violation of terms and conditions of the loan agreement and as such we are of the view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP in making seizure of the vehicle and in charging excess interest and other charges and accordingly we answer this point in a negative.
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed. No costs.
Supply free copy of this order to both parties.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open forum on this, the 17th day of December 2016).
LADY MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
