State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Anupa Seetharamulu S/O.Yerranna ... vs The Manager, Mahindra & Mahindra ... on 2 July, 2012
BEFORE THE A BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD. FA.No.1231/2010 against C C.No.41/2009 District Forum, MAHABOOBNAGAR Between Anupa Seetharamulu S/o.Yerranna, age 23 years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o.H.No.1-2, Narsingapur Village, Bhootpur Mandal, Dist.Mahaboobnagar. ..Appellant/ Complainant. And The Manager, Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd., H.No.1-5-107/4/A, Behind ING Vysya Bank, New town, Mahaboobnagar. Respondent/ opposite party Counsel for the Appellant : Mr.P.Venkateswara Rao Counsel for the Respondent : M/s. V. Mohan Srinivas QUORUM: THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT,
AND SMT.M.SHREESHA, HONBLE MEMBER, MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND TWELVE Order (Per Smt.M.Shreesha, Honble Member) *** Aggrieved by the orders in C.C.No.41/2009 on the file of District Forum, Mahaboobnagar, the complainant preferred this appeal.
The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant, an agriculturist, to eke out his livelihood, intended to purchase a tractor and trailor of Mahindra company costing Rs.5,43,000/- and exchanged his old Mahindra Tractor with Sri Jayarama Automotives (P) Ltd., dealer of Mahindra company. His old tractor was estimated at a value of Rs.1,30,000/- and the complainant paid an amount of Rs.93,000/- and obtained a loan of Rs.3,20,000/- from opposite party on 27-10-2007 for purchasing a new tractor. The complainant submitted that he has given two post dated cheques at the time of availing loan and also deposited his title deeds and Pattadar pass book pertaining to his agricultural lands and also arranged a guarantor by name Yadaiah as per the demand of the opposite party at the time of availing the loan. The complainant submitted that the loan amount together with interest has to be repaid in 4 half yearly instalments at Rs.1,06,736/- from October, 2007 to October, 2009. The complainant paid first instalment upto Rs.80,000/- and thereafter suffered ill health and could not pay the balance amount of first instalment. The complainant submitted that the opposite party seized the vehicle due to non payment of the instalment amount and the complainant submitted that he requested the opposite party to give some time for repayment of loan amount but the opposite party refused and therefore he approached the opposite party to make payment of the due amount of first instalment i.e. 26,000/- but opposite party refused to take the amount and stated that they sold the tractor to a third party. The complainant submitted that the opposite party has issued a false legal notice stating that the complainant has surrendered his tractor and trailer to them and also that the complainant should approach them within a week for settlement of accounts. The complainant submitted that he approached them and requested to hand over his tractor as agricultural session is on and he will repay the amount after one week but opposite party refused to release the vehicle and demanded for payment of the entire loan amount though he promised to pay the future instalments regularly. The complainant submitted that the opposite party adopted unfair trade practice by seizing the vehicle and demanding payment of the entire loan amount at a time and gave false notice stating that the complainant surrendered the tractor and trailer. Hence the complaint for a direction to the opposite party to return the tractor and trailer which was illegally seized by them and pay Rs.1000/- per day as rent for tractor and trailer from the date of illegal seizure till the date of its return together with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and costs.
Opposite party filed counter denying the allegations made in the complaint. It stated that the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as he is not the absolute owner of the hired vehicle and that it had advanced loan amount for the purchase of tractor and trailer. It submitted that the complainant having executed the loan agreement in favour of the opposite party on 27-10-2007 agreeing to repay the loan of Rs.3,20,000/- in four equal half yearly instalments commencing from 25-4-2008 has not even paid full instalment amount even on 25-4-2008 and inspite of several reminders by the opposite party, he approached them on 11-9-2008 expressing his inability to repay the loan and voluntarily surrendered the tractor and trailer. Opposite party submitted that even after surrender they gave further chance to the complainant by issuing a telegram on 19-9-2008 to discharge his liability and on 05-10-2008 issued a notice to the complainant to settle the account. The complainant having received the said notice approached them and expressed his inability to repay the loan and gave a consent letter on 15-10-2008 requesting to sell the tractor and trailer in open market and credit the sale amount to his account. Thereupon the opposite party got assessed the value of the tractor @ Rs.3,00,000/- and trailer @ Rs.40,000/- and sold the same in public auction for a higher price at Rs.3,60,000/- and the said amount was adjusted towards the loan amount and submitted that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
Based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A10 and B1 to B7 and the pleadings put forward, the District Forum dismissed the complaint.
Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred this appeal.
It is the complainants case that he has purchased a tractor and trailer by obtaining loan from the opposite party for Rs.3,20,000/- and agreed to repay the same in four half yearly instalments of Rs.1,06,736/- commencing from October, 2007 and paid an amount of Rs.80,000/- towards the first instalments and did not pay the balance citing reason of ill health. Ex.A2 is the demand notice issued by opposite party dated 05-10-2008 demanding the complainant to settle the account immediately. It is also stated in the said letter that a telegram was also sent to him to settle his account and he has already surrendered his tractor.
It is the opposite partys case that the complainant paid only Rs.80,000/- towards the first instalment and did not pay balance and also gave Ex.B2 consent letter which is handwritten and signed by the complainant citing reasons of ill health for non payment of the instalments and has willingly surrendered the tractor to the opposite party on his volition. Thereafter the opposite party realised a sum of Rs.3,60,000/- by auctioning this tractor and trailer and adjusted this amount towards loan amount on 26-11-2008. It is the appellant/complainants case that Ex.B2 and B6 are fabricated. Ex.B2 dated 11-9-2008 surrendering the tractor and also Ex.B6 dated 15-10-2008 which is the consent letter are both handwritten letters and signed by the complainant and it is the contention of the complainant that both these are fabricated, he ought to have taken appropriate steps to establish the same which he did not choose to do so. If forgery and fabrication of the documents are alleged by the complainant, in fact, he ought to have approached the civil court as the Consumer Fora adjudicate matter in summary proceedings and it is open to the complainant to approach the civil court and seek redressal by seeking exclusion of time, if he is so advised. Ex.B3 is the photocopy of the telegram sent to the complainant demanding that he pays the amount as he has already surrendered the tractor. This telegram is dated 19-9-2008 whereas it is not in dispute that the initial loan was taken vide Ex.B1 on 27-10-2007. The complainant has failed to establish by any documentary evidence that he never surrendered the tractor or that he had requested for an opportunity to settle his account but instead all the evidence establishes that he did not pay even the second instalment on account of ill health and he himself has surrendered the tractor voluntarily. For the aforementioned reasons, we see no reason to interfere with the well considered order of the District Forum.
In the result this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-PRESIDENT.
Sd/-MEMBER.
JM 02-7-2012