BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM RAICHUR.
COMPLAINT NO. (DCFR) CC 55/10.
THIS THE 29th DAY OF APRIL 2011.
P R E S E N T
1. Sri. Pampapathi B.sc.B.Lib. LLB PRESIDENT.
2. Sri. Gururaj, B.com.LLB. (Spl) MEMBER.
3. Smt. Pratibha Rani Hiremath,M.A. (Sanskrit) MEMBER
*****
COMPLAINANT :- Siddalingayya S. Hiremath S/o.
Siddalengeshwara Hotel, Age: Major, Occ: Agri., & Business, R/o. Opp: S.B.H. Behind Bus Stand, Main Road, Indira Nagar, Manvi, Dist; Raichur.
//VERSUS//
RESPONDENTS :- 1. The TATA Motor Finance, A Division of
TATA Motors Ltd., Bombay House, Homi Modi Street, Mumbai- 400 001.
2. TATA Motors Ltd., 1st floor, Cyber Tech
Hoouse, Plot No. B-63/65, Road No. 21/34, J.B. Savanth Marg, Waghe State, Thana West- 400 604.
3. TATA Motors Ltd., Oxford House, 3rd floor, Rushtumbagh Estate, Air Port Road, Bangalore- 560 017.
4. TATA Motors Ltd., Hubli.
CLAIM :- For to direct the opposite to pay a sum of Rs.
1,00,000/- towards damage of vehicle, Rs. 50,000/- towards shock and mental agony and Rs. 10,000/- cost of the proceedings
Date of institution :- 16-07-10.
Notice served :- 18-08-10.
Date of disposal :- 29-04-11.
Complainant represented by Sri. Y. Srikanth, Advocate.
Respondent represented by Sri.T.M. Swamy, Advocate.
This case coming for final disposal before us, the Forum on considering the entire material and evidence placed on record by the parties passed the following.
JUDGEMENT
By Sri. Gururaj, Member:-
This is a complaint filed by the complainant Siddalingayya S. Hiremath S/o. Siddalingeshwara Hotel against the Opposite Nos. (1) TATA Motors Finance, Mumbai, (2) TATA Motors Ltd., Thana West, (3) TATA Motors Ltd., Bangalore and (4) TATA Motors Ltd., Hubli., U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct the opposite to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards damage of vehicle, Rs. 50,000/- towards shock and mental agony and Rs. 10,000/- cost of the proceedings.
2. The brief facts of the complainant case are that, the complainant is the customer under the opposites as he availed a loan of Rs. 1,40,000/- for purchasing a TATA Sumo Vehicle bearing Registration No. KA-36/M-5526 bearing Engine No. 706054, Chassis No. LA-36/1035/0304 vide Contract No. CAR 817567 dt. 26-07-05. It is the case of the complainant that, he has paid installment amount which were started form 02-08-05 to 02-06-07 to the tune of Rs. 78,600/- and remaining installments from 01-07-07 to 02-06-07 has been paid on 02-07-07 at Hubli, to the tune of Rs. 86,803/-. After payment of all these installments the opposites issued a Form No. 35 in respect of notice of termination of an agreement of hire purchase/hypothecation to the RTO, Raichur in respect of Contract No. 8175 dt. 26-07-05, accordingly the RTO, Raichur also cancelled the Hypothecation in respect of the vehicle loan is concerned. Further it is the case of the complainant that, after receipt of the Rs. 86,803/- the opposites assured and undertaken for returning all cheques, but instead of returning the cheques to the complainant wrongly issued a notice dt. 25-01-10 by the Arbitrator by name Sri. Nitin Chauhan vide Arbitration Case No. LOT 110/R19259 of 2010 to the complainant stating that, the complainant is due as on 22-01-10 to the extent of Rs. 37,373/- and for repayment of the same with interest at the rate 2.5%. Even inspite of clearance of all the dues the issuance of notices and filing of the Arbitration cases by the Respondents is nothing but an illegal act, and also a deficiency in service on their part. Hence he has sought for compensation as prayed in the prayer.
3. The Respondents Insurance Company appeared in this case through its Advocate and filed written version contending that, the present complaint filed by the complainant is an abuse of process of law and it is not maintainable, as there is a suppression of material facts. The loan cum hypothecation cum guarantee agreement between the complainant and the opposites has been already terminated and NOC has been issued to the complainant on 11-10-10, the vehicle in question in the possession of the complainant, hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed in liminy.
Further it is the case of the Respondent that, the complainant is a chronically defaulter he has defaulted in repayments within the prescribed time of the installment No. 2,,3,5,6,7,9 and 13 further the cheque issued by the complainant towards the repayment of the loan have been dishounoured due to insufficient funds in the account which proves the malafide conduct on the part of the complainant. Further it is also contended that, the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the agreement, the complainant has filed false and frivolous case against the opposites company. Under the above circumstances, the complainant is not entitled for the claim and opposites have sought for dismissal of the same with exemplary cost and interest.
4. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that:
1. Whether the complainant proves that, there is a deficiency on the part of the opposites.?
2. Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in the complaint.
3. What order?
5. Our findings on the above points are as under:-
(1) In the affirmative.
(2) As discussed in the body of this judgement and as stated in the final order.
(3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos- 1 & 2, we proceed
to pass the final order for the following :
REASONS
POINT NO.1 & 2:-
6. To prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of the complainant was filed and he was noted as PW-1. The documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-18 are marked.
7. On the other hand affidavit-evidence of one A.M. Mulla, Area Manager (Legal) of Opposites Company was filed and he was noted as RW-1. The only one document filed by the opposite is marked at Ex.R-1.
8. On going through the pleadings of the parties and their respective evidences and documents it discloses that parties are not in dispute on the following points.
1) The complainant is the customer of opposites and he has availed loan of Rs. 1,40,000/- for purchasing TATA Sumo Vehicle bearing Registration No. KA-36/M5526 bearing Engine No. 706054, Chassis No. LA-36/1035/0304 vide Contract No. CAR 817567 dt. 26-07-05.
2) It is undisputed fact that, the complainant has repaid the entire loan amount to the opposites and the opposites have given Form No. 35 in respect of the notice of termination of an agreement of hire purchase/hypothecation to RTO, Raichur.
3) It is further undisputed fact that, the RTO, Raichur cancelled the hypothecation wordings mentioned in the RC Book of the said vehicle.
4) It is further undisputed fact that, the opposites have initiated the Arbitration proceedings and the arbitrator has got issued a notice dt. 25-01-10 to claim an amount of Rs. 37,505/- against the complainant and later on same was unconditionally withdrawn by the opposites vide letter dt. 12-10-10.
9. The case of the complainant that, inspite of repayment of the entire loan amount the opposites have initiated the arbitration proceedings and the notice has been issued by demanding to pay an amount of Rs. 37,505/-. The opposites at the time of filing the written version, they have denied the case of the complainant and alleged that, the complainant is defaulter in repayment of installment No. 2,,3,5,6,7,9 and 13 and he has suppressed material facts and for that, the complaint filed by him is to be dismissed. But, after gone through Ex.R-1 i.e, unconditional letter for withdrawing the arbitration case filed against the complainant, clearly goes to show that, there was a case against the complainant before the arbitration for to recover an amount of Rs. 37,505/- and same has been withdrawn on 12-10-10. This fact discloses that, after filing the complaint before this Forum and after issuing notices to the opposites, the opposites have wokeup and rectified their mistakes by withdrawing their case unconditionally before the arbitrator.
This act of the opposites caused great negligence and tried to recover an amount of Rs. 37,505/- through an arbitrator illegally and caused difficulties in approaching the Forum and makes him to sustain mentally and physically loss, hence we have come to the conclusion that, there is a deficiency in service on the part of the opposites. So we have answered Point No-1 in affirmative.
POINT NO.2:-
10. The complainant has sought compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards damage of the vehicle, Rs. 50,000/- towards mental shock and agony, incontinence etc., and Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of the proceedings. But the complainant of this case has received relevant documents such as No due, Letter of cancellation of hypothecation and RTO, Raichur has cancelled and apart from that, the vehicle in question is also in his possession. Under such circumstances, loss to the complainant mere initiating the arbitration proceedings and for that, he has suffered with a damages to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- cannot be accepted. The claim made by the complainant is excessive and exorbitant one, further the claim made under mental shock and agony and cost of the proceedings to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- is also excessive one. Further it is worthwhile to note here that, there was no documents to show that, he has sustained with heavy damage of Rs. 1,00,000/- Rs. 50,000/- loss and he has spent Rs. 10,000/-. Therefore, the claim of the complainant under these heads cannot be accepted. However, we have decided to award a global compensation of Rs. 10,000/- including under the head of the deficiency in service and cost of the proceedings.
11. Regarding the interest is concerned, we have awarded 9% interest on the total compensation amount from the date of filing of the complaint to till its realization.
POINT NO.3:-
12. In view of our finding on Point Nos-1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed with cost.
The complainant is entitled to recover a total sum of Rs. 10,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% from the Respondent Company from the date of complaint till realization of full amount.
Respondent Company is hereby given one month time from the date of the judgement for to make payment of the total amount with interest.
Intimate the parties accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 29-04-11)
Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Sri. Gururaj Sri. Pampapathi,
Member. Member. President,
Dist.Forum-Raichur. Dist-Forum-Raichur Dist-Forum-Raichur.
