State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Branch Manager M/S. India Bulls ... vs M/S. Mohammed Sadik Patel, on 15 June, 2022
1
BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMM ISSION : HYDERABAD.
FA NO.92 OF2016 AGAINST CC NO.333 OF 2013
ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT CONSUMER cOMMISSION-IIL,
HYDERABAD
Between:
The Branch Manager,
M/s.India Bulls Financial
Services Ltd., 5th Floor,
Venkat Plaza, Panjagutta,
Hyderabad - 500 052.
.Appellant/Opposite Party
AND
Mr.Mohammed Sadik Patel,
S/o.Mastan Patel Mohammed,
Aged about 28 years, Occ: Driver,
H.No.11-222, Near Ameer Hamza Majid,
Shaheen Nagar Balapur Village,
Saroornagar, Hyderabad - 500 045.
.Respondent/Complainant
COunsel for the Appellants/Opp. Parties:
M/s.Gopi Rajesh &Associates
Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant : Mr.Syed Jamed Ahmed
QUORAM: SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL, HON'BLE PRESIDENT,
HON'BLE SMT.MEENA RAMANATHAN..LADY MEMBER
WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND TWENTY TWO w****** Order
1. This is an appeal tiled by the Appellant/Opposite Party under Section-15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying this Commission to set aside the impugned order dated 07.12.2015 in CC.No.333/2013 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hyderabad; to impose heavy cost; to call for the record in consumer complaint No.284 of 2013.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the complaint.
purchascd a
3. The bricf facts of the case are that the Complainant under purchase goods carriage Ashok Leyland Truck on 30.09.2011 is a hypothecation agreement with Opposite Party. The Complainant driver by profession. The Complainant availed a loan of Rs.19,92,606/- and the vehicle was registercd on 16.12.2011 vide registration No.AP 29 TB 3160. The EMI payable was Rs.47,788/- for a period of 59 months. It is submitted that the Complainant had paid Rs.48,000/ towards monthly installments regularly. But the Opposite Party harassed him Cvery month for payment of installments and hold the aforesaid vehicle for a couple of days, before releasing it after verifying the payments made by him. Further, the Opposite Party charged the interest @ 14.32% per annum instead of interest@ 7% per annum which was agreed at the time of obtaining the loan. On 27.02.2013, the agents of the Opposite Party seized the vehicle of the Complainant even though he paid monthly installment on 21.02.2013. The Complainant who is a driver by profession had purchased the said vehicle for his livelihood.was deprived of his daily income and had suffered severe monetary loss and daily income of Rs.400 to Rs.600 per day due to the forcible seizure of the vehicle by the Opposite Party.
Aggrieved by the act of Opposite Party, the Complainant filed the complaint seeking justice.
4. TheOpposite Party filed written version contending that the Complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands and had deposed falsely on affidavit. It is stated that the complaint is not maintainable before the Forum as the Complainant is not a Consumer as per the definition of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and is excluded from the purview of the act as he is the owner of the three vehicles in his individual capacity and therefore the financed vehicle was used for commercial purpose which is revealed by Complainant in his application dated 27.09.2011. Further, the parties to the complaint are governed by the arbitration clause of the loan agreement executed between the parties. The Complainant sought relief for return of the vehicle in question and the value of the vehicle is beyond pecuniary jurisdiction of the Forum. The Complainant was called upon to handover the possession of the vehicle and to pay the outstanding amount of Rs.18,27,116/- but the Complainant did not come forward. Hence, the matter was referred to an Arbitrator and the vehicle was seized as per the order of the Arbitrator dated 09.02.2013.
5. It is further stated that since the Complainant desaulted, all the payments from 01.01.2013, arbitration proceedings were initiated in February,2013 and the vehicle was re-possessed on 13.03.2013. The of Opposite Party granted the loan to the Complainant for the purchase basis of the said vehicle on interest rate of 14.31% calculated on the interest internal rate of return. If calculated on the flat rate basis, the Moreover, the Complainant never rate amounts to 7.83% per annum.
to filing the raised any objections with regard to the rate of interest prior denies deficiency complaint. With these submissions, the Opposite Party in service on their part and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
in order to
6. During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, and the prove his case, Complainant filed evidence affidavit the documents Ex.A1 to A8 are marked on his behalf. The Opposite Party filed their evidence affidavit and Ex.B1 to B8 are marked on their behalf.
7. The District Forum after hearing both sides and upon considering the material available on record, allowed the complaint directing the Opposite Party to pay the Complainant a sum of Rs.4 lakhs towards compensation; Rs.2,000/- towards costs. Time for compliance was given as 30 days, failing which the interest @ 9% per annum shall be payable .on the sum of Rs.4 1lakhs calculated from 16.01.2016 until realization.
8. Aggrieved by the above orders, the Appellant/Opposite party preferred this appeal contending that the forum below failed to consider the following grounds:
.The learned District Forum has not appreciated the fact that the Appellant filed the reply to the complaint and intimated about the Arbitral proceeding initiated by the Appellant as per the terms of the loan agreement.
The District Forum ought to have seen that the Complainant did not purchase the said vehicle for his self employment for earning his livelihood.
The District Forum ought to have scen that before selling the of the vehicle was not done by the vehicle, the valuation iovernmnet approved valuer and the value of the vehicle was assessed Rs. 13,70,000/- by the valuer. T h e District Forum ought to have scen that the vehicle has been sold as per the guidelines laid down by the Reserve Bank of India.
9. The point that arises for consideration is whether the irnpugncd Orcder as passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or rregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner? To what relief ?
10 Heard both sides. Peruscd material on record.
11. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant/Opposite Party and perusing the record, we are of the opinion that the point to be answered is as to whether the seizure of the vehicle by the Appellant/Opposite Party is in contravention of any law or whether they have followed the due process before seizing the vehicle and putting the same to auction.
12. Briefly stated the facts are that the Respondent/Complainant has admittedly purchased the goods lorry bearing No.AP 29TB 3160 by obtaining the finance fro the Appellant/Opposite Party to a tune of Rs.19,92,606/- and the vehicle was purchased on 30.09.2011. After having purchased the vehicle, the Respondent/Complainant is said to have spent about Rs.3.5 lakhs for building the body and other accessories. He has also paid the insurance component for insuring the vehicle. The agreed EMI was Rs.47,788/- for a period of 59 months. Installments were paid and when the Respondent/Complainant committed default, a notice Ex.B4 was issued by the Appellant/Opposite Party calling upon him to clear the arrears failing which the matter will be proceeded further. Ex.B4 is dated 23.01.2013. The Respondent/Complainant did not respond to it and subsequently on 31.08.2013 vide Ex.B5, the Appellant/Opposite Party informed the Respondent/Complainant that a total sum of Rs.19,56,962/- is payable by him as on that day. Since the Respondent/Complainant did not comply with the same, the matter was referred to the sole Arbitrator and vide award dated 24.05.2013, the Arbitrator authorized the Appellant/Opposite Party to seize the vehicle in view of the defaults committed by him. Pursuant thereto, the vehicle was seized and the same was put to auction. Therefore, it is manifest that the seizure of the vehicle by the Appellant/Opposite Party cannot be said to be illegal or vehicle.
high handed. They have followed the due process and seized the
13. We have carefully perused the complaint. The Complainant is not asked for seeking for releasing the vehicle or for its cost. Instead he only a sum of Rs.3.5 lakhs which is said to have spent for body building and accessories for the vehicle and the loss sustained by him. In other words, what appears to be is that the Respondent/Complainant has no grievance insofar as the seizure of the vehicle by the Appellant/0pposite Party and its putting to auction is concerned.
The District Forum has not even accepted the claim of the
14. the Complainant that he has spent Rs.3.5 lakhs for repairs. However, District Forum for the inconvenience that was subjected to the Respondent/Complainant has awarded a sum of Rs.4 lakhs towards Compensation.
15. The main contention of the Appellant/Opposite Party is that the District Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It is submitted that when the total cost of the vehicle was Rs.19,92,606/- another sum of Rs.3 lakhs was spent for body building and other accessories. Therefore, the total cost of the property that is subject matter of the complaint is more than Rs.22 lakhs. As the law was then prevailing and in view of the provisions of the 1986 Act, the District Forum has got no jurisdiction if the value of the goods and services and compensation, if any claimed do not exceed more than Rs.20 lakhs. Since the Complainant claim that the value of.the goods is more than Rs.20 lakhs, the District Forum ought not to have entertained the complaint and even though this contention was specifically raised by the Appellant/Opposite Party in the written version, the same has not properly adjudicated. There is no quarrel with the legal proposition that for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of the different hierarchies constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, as per the decision of the Ambrish Kumar Shukla && 21 Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Put.Ltd., reported in (2017) 1 CPJ 1 (NC), what is required to be seen is the total value of the goods and services and the compensation, if any claimed, but not the cost of the deficiency that is sought to be replaced. In other words, we have to see the total value of the property for determining jurisdiction. In the instant case, as already stated, the cost of the property that is subject matter of the complaint is more than Rs.22 lakhs over which the District Forum has admittedly no jurisdiction entertain. In spite of that a'legation being raised, the District Forum went on to award compensation which cannot be sustained. In view of the foregoing discussion and upon reappraisal of the entire oral and documentary evidence on record, we find ourselves to be not able to agree to the findings of the District Forum and therefore the same are liable to be set aside.
16. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The statutory amount, if any, deposited by the Appellant shall be released in favour of the Appellant.