State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sasanapuri Someswara Rao, ... vs 1..Shriram City Union Finance Ltd., ... on 25 February, 2013
BEFORE THE A BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD. F.A.No.933/2011 against C.C.No.166/2011, Dist. Forum-II, Visakhapatnam Between: Sasanapuri Someswara Rao, S/o.China Vasudeva Rao, Hindu, aged 55 years, R/o.D.No.6-88, Ravindra Nagar, Visakhapatnam- 530 017. Appellant/ Complainant And 1.Shriram City Union Finance Ltd., Represented by its Sr.Branch Manager, D.No.58-1-272/2, Mahasomeswara Rao Complex, NAD, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam -530 009. 2. Shriram City Union Finance Ltd., Represented by its Branch Manager, D.No.33-104 ,1st floor, Balaji Road, Jende Street, Chinna Bazar, Bobbili-535 558. 3. Shriram City Union Finance Ltd., Represented by its Sr.Branch Manager, D.No.3-6-478, 3rd floor, Anand Estates, Himayath Nagar, Hyderabad 500 029. 4. Shriram City Union Finance Ltd., Represented by its Zonal Manager, 221, Royapettah High Road, Mylapore, Chennai. .. Respondents Opp.parties Counsel for the Appellant : M/s.S.Madhva Raju Counsel for the Respondents : M/s.K.R.R.Associates QUORUM: SRI.R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HONBLE MEMBER, SRI T.ASHOK KUMAR, HONBLE MEMBER, AND SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HONBLE MEMBER.
MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN.
Oral Order : (Per Sri S.Bhujanga Rao, Honble Member).
*** The unsuccessful complainant filed the appeal against the order dt.30.8.2011 of the District Forum-II, Visakhapatnam made in C.C.No.166/2011 which is filed by the appellant/complainant seeking direction for supply of the agreement under which he borrowed the loan of Rs.6 lakhs for purchasing the vehicle bearing no.OR 15E 6328 and also for payment of compensation of Rs.50,000/- as well as costs.
For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint.
The brief case of the complainant, as set out in the complaint is as follows:
The complainant approached the opposite parties for vehicle loan and the opposite parties sanctioned an amount of Rs.6 lakhs to the complainant to purchase the vehicle bearing no.OR 15E 6328 and in that connection, both parties entered into an agreement dt.12.8.2010. In that connection, the complainant gave six blank cheques to the opposite parties. The opposite parties never issued the copy of the said agreement to the complainant, till the date of filing of the complaint. The complainant has to clear the loan amount in monthly instalments and the last instalment falls due on 11.8.2011. The complainant has been paying instalments regularly without any default and paid the last instalment on 31.3.2011. The total amount paid by the complainant to the opposite party as per the statement of account is Rs.1,65,000/-.
The further case of the complainant is that the men of the opposite parties have come to his house and making mess regularly and the complainant could not live peacefully, with his family, in his house. The opposite parties are also threatening the complainant with seizure of the vehicle. During the night time at about 9 p.m., the opposite parties and their men came to the house of the complainant and made havoc in the premises, but due to intervention of the elders in the locality, the opposite parties and their men left the premises, proclaiming that they would see the end of the complainant and that they would seize the vehicle forcibly. Hence the complaint.
Resisting the complaint, the opposite party no.2 filed counter/written version which was adopted by other opposite parties, denying the material allegations made in the complaint and contended that the District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, as no part of the cause of action pertaining to this case had arisen within the territorial limits of the District Forum and that opposite party no.1 was wrongly impleaded in a bid to invoke the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum, as such, the case is bad for mis joinder of parties.
The opposite parties, while admitting that the complainant obtained a loan from opposite party no.2 for purchasing the vehicle in question, contended that the complainant did not pay the monthly instalments and thereby acquired the status of chronic defaulter in payment of monthly instalments and that the amount due from the complainant was Rs.1,98,000/- as on the date of filing of their counter/written version, besides the amount of charges leviable for delayed payment. That the complainant did not pay even a single instalment on the due date. Since the complainant did not pay the instalments regularly , the opposite party no.2 has contractual right to take possession of the financed vehicle and also to sell it in a public auction for realizing the arrears, as per the terms of the agreement. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
During the course of enquiry, in order to prove his case, the complainant filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. On behalf of the opposite parties , Exs.B1 and B2 were marked.
Upon hearing the counsel for both the parties and on consideration of the material on record, the District Forum came to the conclusion that the complainant is a defaulter in payment of the instalments of the loan amount and that the demand of the complainant for supply of copy of the alleged loan agreement is highly belated besides baseless and that the District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Consequently the District Forum dismissed the complaint without costs.
Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred the above appeal urging that the order passed by the District Forum-II, Visakhapatnam is against law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. That the District Forum erred in holding that the complainant acquired status of defaulter as on 30.8.2011. That the District Forum failed to consider that the opposite party did not place any evidence to prove that they supplied the copy of the agreement . The impugned order is therefore liable to be set aside.
We heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the entire material placed on record.
Now the point for consideration is whether the impugned order of the District Forum is vitiated for misappreciation of fact or law?
It is an admitted fact, that the opposite parties have facilitated the complainant to purchase the vehicle bearing no.OR 15E 6328 by sanctioning a loan of Rs.6 lakhs on 12.2.2010. It is also not in dispute that the said loan amount is repayable in equated monthly instalments and the date of the last instalment fell due on 11.8.2012 and that the complainant has paid the instalments upto 31.3.2011 and thereafter he failed to pay the remaining the monthly instalments and thereby acquired the status of defaulter . Therefore as per the terms and conditions of the agreement entered into by the complainant and the opposite party no.2, the opposite parties have acquired the contractual right to opt for repossession of the vehicle in question and also to sell it in a public auction, for realizing the arrear amount.
The contention of the complainant is that he was not provided with the copy of the loan agreement dt. 12.8.2010 by the opposite parties. On the other hand the contention of the opposite parties is that they delivered a copy of the loan agreement and that therefore he did not raise his voice till the date of filing of the complaint and that his contention of not supplying a copy of the loan agreement is nothing but a rouse introduced by him, so as to cover his laches and default as well.
It is not in dispute, that the loan agreement was clinched between the complainant and opposite party no.2 on 12.8.2010, the copy of the said agreement is marked as Ex.B1. The present complaint was filed by the complainant on 27.4.2011. The complainant has not filed a piece of paper to show that he demanded the opposite party to furnish the copy of the agreement stating that he was not furnished the same at the time of execution of the above said agreement. As rightly observed by the District Forum that had there been any truth in his contention, regarding the alleged non supply of copy of loan agreement, definitely he would have raised his voice immediately after borrowing the loan. More so, he did not issue any legal notice to the opposite parties demanding them for supply of copy of the loan agreement. The specific contention of the opposite parties is that they have supplied copy of the loan agreement to the complainant and as such, there is no truth in the contention of the complainant. Under these circumstances, the complainant failed to prove that he was not supplied with the copy of the loan agreement. Therefore we hold that the complainant failed to establish that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in not supplying the copy of the loan agreement.
The complainant claimed compensation of Rs.50,000/- on the premise that the employees of the opposite parties have harassed him by visiting his house day in and day out and due to that harassment, he was subjected to lot of mental agony. Since the opposite parties have denied those allegations of harassment, the burden is on the complainant to prove the alleged harassment met out to him, by the employees of the opposite parties. Except the interested averments in the complainants affidavit, the complainant did not place any evidence to prove the alleged harassment. That apart, the complainant being a borrower is not expected to get any service from the opposite parties as they are of lenders.
Under these circumstances and in view of our finding above, no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties has been established.
the complainant is therefore, not entitled to claim any amount much less Rs.50,000/- towards compensation.
Further it is the case of the opposite parties that the District Forum at Visakhapatnam does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It is an admitted fact that the complainant has borrowed the loan amount from the office of the second opposite party which is situated at Bobbili, Vizianagaram District. The averments made in the complaint do not show that any part of the alleged cause of action had arisen within the territorial limits of the District Forum, Visakhapatnam.
Therefore, the District Forum rightly held that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances discussed above, we do not find any irregularity or illegality in the well reasoned order of the District Forum to interfere with it.
In the result appeal is dismissed confirming the impugned order of the District Forum . However there shall be no order as to costs.
MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER Dt.25.
2.2013 Pm*