BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, AT GULBARGA : :

C.C.No.160/2008

Date of filing : 13/08/2008

Date of disposal : 16/03/2009

P R E S E N T :- (1) Shri. Shivananda Katti
B.A., LL.B.,
President.

(2) Smt. Gopemma,
B.A.,
Member.

(3) Sri V.S.Yekkelli,
M.Com, LL.B.,(Spl.).,
Member.

COMPLAINANT:- Umesh Reddy S/o Somnath Reddy,
Age: 33 yrs, R/o Hill Top Colony,
KEMBHAVI-585 216,
Tq. Shorapur, Dist. Gulbarga.

(By Sri B. K. Patil, Advocate).

// Versus //

OPPONENT:-1) Branch Manager,
Sriram Transport Finance Co., Ltd.,
Near Sahara Motors, B.B. Road,
Shahapur Branch, Shahapur,
Tq. Shahapur, Dist. Gulbarga.

2)Managing Director,
Sriram Transport Finance Co., Ltd.,
Registered Office: 123,
Angappa Naicken Street,
Chennai-600 001 (Tamil Nadu).

(O.P.No.1 – Exparte)
(O.P.No.2 by Sri N.B. Divanji, Advocate).

: : O R D E R : :

1.This complaint is filed by one Umesh Reddy S/o Somanath Reddy R/o Kembhavi, Tq. Shorapur Dist. Gulbarga against the O.P.No.1 and 2 u/s.12 of Consumer Protection 1986 praying that, direction may be given to O.Ps. to release the lorry brg.No.KA-33/9090. Further direction may be given to O.Ps. to pay compensation of Rs.800/- per day from 15.7.2008 till date of disposal. Further direction may be given to O.Ps. to pay Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and cost of this proceedings in the interest of justice.

2.The brief facts of the case of the complainant are as under;
Complainant has purchased a Lorry brg.No.KA-33/9090, accordingly he approached the O.Ps. for financial assistance. After making request by the complainant, on 1.2.2006 O.P. has sanctioned loan of Rs.1,25,000/-. The flat interest of the said loan is Rs.35,000/-, insurance charges Rs.7,000/-, totally Rs.1,67,000/-. The total amount of loan is to be payable in 24 monthly installments. Further it is submitted that, he has paid all the loan amount to O.Ps. Complainant requested O.Ps. orally and also by writing for issuing No objection Certificate. But O.Ps. have not issued the said certificate. On 15.7.2008 without informing or without notice, O.Ps. have seized the lorry. Therefore there is a deficiency of service on the part of O.Ps. After seizing the lorry by the O.Ps., he has suffered loss of Rs.800/- per day. This Forum have got jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Under these circumstances, it is submitted that, complaint may be allowed and direction may be given to O.Ps. to pay compensation as prayed in the complaint.

3.After registering the case, notices were issued to O.Ps. After serving the notices, O.P.No.2 appeared through counsel and filed Written Statement. Though notice served to O.P.No.1, he did not appear, therefore, he was placed exparte. O.P.No.2 filed Written Statement contending that, it is true that, complainant availed financial assistance from O.Ps. for purchasing vehicle under valid loan cum hypothecation agreement dated 31.1.2006. O.P. advanced an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- and the value of agreement was of Rs.1,67,000/- and it includes finance charges of Rs.35,000/- and insurance deposit of Rs.7,000/-. It was payable in 24 monthly installments. The first installment was of Rs.8,400/- from 2nd to 8th installment was of Rs.7,816/-. From 9th to 13th installment was of Rs.6,816/-, from 14th to 15th installment was of Rs.7,400/-, from 17th to 23rd installment was of Rs.5,100/- and 24th installment was of Rs.4,900/-. As per the terms and conditions of the Loan-cum-hypothecation agreement, complainant was required to make the payment on due dates otherwise he was liable to pay additional finance charges for delayed payment. It is specifically submitted that, from the beginning, complainant was very irregular in making repayment of loan amount. Since the complainant has become a defaulter, he is liable to pay additional finance charges of Rs.35,057/- as on 30.10.2008. It is specifically submitted that, complainant has availed a tyre loan of Rs.18,000/- on 1.9.2007 through vide agreement No.STFC/SL/SHU/75314T/01. It is more pertinent to submit that, tyre loan does not carry any interest, if it is repaid within the stipulated period. As complainant has not repaid the tyre loan within agreed period he is liable to pay an amount of Rs.5,690/-. In all complainant is liable to pay an amount of Rs.23,690/- towards tyre loan. It is submitted that, complainant is still liable to pay an amount of Rs.35,057/- towards vehicle loan amount and an amount of Rs.23,690/- towards tyre loan. In total complainant is still liable to pay an amount of Rs.58,747/- to O.Ps. Further it is stated in the written statement that, it is true that, complainant demanded the clearance certificate from the O.P. orally, but when he was informed of the dues as he is still liable to pay the O.Ps. Complainant is avoiding to make payment. He has approached this Hon’ble Forum by suppressing the truth with malafide intention to dupe the O.P. company. Complainant has refused to make any payment to O.P. Therefore, the officials of the O.P. company having no alternative remedy to recover the loan amount, have seized the vehicle. The vehicle was seized as per the terms and conditions of the Loan-cum-hypothecation agreement. Under these circumstances, it is submitted that, complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4.To prove the claim of complainant, himself was filed affidavit by way of evidence who examined as PW-1, documents got marked Exh.P-1 to P-7. O.P.No.2 also filed affidavit by way of cross of PW-1. Complainant side evidence closed. Further O.P.No.2 filed affidavit by way of evidence, who examined as RW-1, got marked documents Exh.R-1 to R-3. Complainant filed affidavit by way of cross of RW-1. O.P. side evidence closed.

5.Heard the arguments from both sides.

6.The points that arises for our consideration are;
(1)Whether there is a deficiency of service on the part of O.Ps?

(2)What Order?

7.Our answer to the above points are as under:-

(1)Yes.

(2)As per final order for the following;

: : R E A S O N S : :

8.Point No:1 :
We have carefully perused the evidence of complainant, affidavit and documents. Complainant case is that, he has availed financial assistance from O.Ps. for purchasing the vehicle under loan-cum-hypothecation agreement, accordingly on 1.2.2006 O.P. sanctioned Rs.1,25,000/-, the flat interest of the said loan is Rs.35,000/-, insurance charges Rs.7,000/-, totally Rs.1,67,000/-. The total amount of loan is to be payable in 24 monthly installments. Further he has stated in the complaint that, he paid all the loan amount to O.Ps. Further he has stated that, he requested O.Ps. orally and also by writing to issue clearance certificate. But O.Ps. have not issued the said certificate. On 15.7.2008 O.Ps. without notice or information seized the lorry. Therefore, there is a deficiency of service on the part of O.Ps. He was examined as PW-1, got marked documents. Exh.P-1 is list of documents, Exh.P-2 & P-6 are (one and the same) seizure letter issued by O.Ps., Exh.P-3 is R.C. book, Exh.P-4 is repayment schedule, Exh.P-5 and P-7 are (24 nos.) receipts issued by O.Ps. On the other hand, O.P.No.2 also filed affidavit by way of evidence who deposed that, complainant availed financial assistance from the O.Ps. for purchasing vehicle under valid loan cum hypothecation agreement. O.P. advanced an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- and the value of agreement was of Rs.1,67,000/-. It was payable in 24 monthly installments. Further O.P.No.2 deposed that, from the beginning, complainant was very irregular while repayment of loan amount. Since complainant become a defaulter, he is liable to pay additional finance charges of Rs.35,057/- as on 30.10.2008. Further he has deposed in his evidence and affidavit that, complainant has availed a tyre loan of Rs.18,000/- on 1.9.2007. This loan does not carry any interest, if it is repaid within the stipulated period. As complainant has not repaid the tyre loan within agreed period, he is liable to pay an amount of Rs.5,690/-. In all complainant is liable to pay an amount of Rs.23,690/- towards tyre loan. O.P.No.2 deposed in his evidence that, complainant still liable to pay an amount of Rs.35,057/- towards vehicle loan amount and an amount of Rs.23,690/- towards tyre loan. Totally he is still liable to pay an amount of Rs.58,747/- to O.Ps. Further he deposed in his evidence that, complainant demanded the clearance certificate from the O.P. orally, when he was informed regarding dues as he is still liable to pay the O.Ps, complainant is avoiding to make payment. Therefore, the officials of the O.P. having no alternative remedy to recover the loan amount have seized the vehicle. But to prove this aspect, O.Ps. have not filed any documents showing that, complainant has obtained the tyre loan, hence this aspect cannot be considered. Time and again, Hon’ble Supreme Court, National Commission and State Commission, their Lordships have passed landmark judgements. Their Lordships have observed in several cases that, before seizing the vehicle, it is mandatory that, information should be given to the owner of the vehicle. In the present case, on going through the evidence of complainant and documents, undoubtedly O.Ps. have not given information before seizing the vehicle which belonging to complainant, O.P. ought to have given notice to him. O.Ps. have not given any information. Therefore, O.Ps. have wrongly seized the vehicle from the possession of the complainant. During course of evidence of O.P.No.2, he got marked some documents, Exh.R-1 is loan-cum-hypothecation agreement, Exh.R-2 is Form-22, Exh.R-3 is ODC calculation. We have carefully perused the documents filed by the complainant i.e Exh.P-5 and P-7 which are receipts issued by O.Ps. which reveals that, complainant has paid Rs.1,83,650/-. Further on going through the said documents, it reveals that, complainant has paid the loan amount. Though in this case, complainant has prayed for awarding Rs.800/- per day and Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and costs of this proceedings. But to prove this aspect, he has not filed any documents nor adduced any independent witnesses. Hence this aspect cannot be considered. On going through the evidence of complainant, affidavit and documents in our considered opinion there is a deficiency of service on the part of O.Ps., accordingly we answered this point in affirmative.

9.Point No.2 :
In view of the discussions made on point No.1, we also answered this point in affirmative. Hence we proceed to pass the following;

: : O R D E R : :

Complaint is partly allowed. O.Ps. are directed the release the vehicle brg.No.KA-33/9090 in favour of complainant. Complainant is also entitled to recover a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards mental agony and cost of this proceedings from O.Ps. Further O.Ps. are directed to comply the order of this Forum jointly and severally within one month from the date of this Order.

(Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in open Forum on this the 16th day of March 2009).




(1) Shri. Shivananda Katti
President



(2) Smt. Gopemma,
Member



(3) Shri V.S.Yekkelli,
Member

I. Name of the complainant:
Sri. Mahaboob Sab
S/o: Dawood Sab
Age: 56 Years, Occ: Owner
of Ashok Lay Land Lorry bearing
No. KA-09/A.833, Tipunagar
No.920, Chintamani, Dist: Kolar
Now residing at Karatagi,
Tq: Gangavathi, Dist: Koppal.

VERSUS


II. Nameof the Opposite Parties: -

1. Sriram Transport finance Co.Ltd.,
Branch Office at No.29/A, 1st Floor
H.K.Road, Bangalore – 560 027.
2.Sriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd.,
Represented by it’s G.P.A.Holder
Sri.Praveenshetty
S/o: Sachidanand Shetty, Age: 36 Years,
Occ: Field Executive (Legal),
R/o: Hubli, Branch Office,
R/o: Plot No.45, 46,471 1st Floor,
C.B.S. Complex, Gangavathi-583227
Dist: Koppal.
3.Mohit Associates,
No.68/7/1, Krishna Block,
1st Main Road, Sheshadripura,
Bangalore – 560 020.
COUNSEL:
Complainants: Sri. R.K.Nerebenchi, Advocate, Gangavathi,
Opposite Parties: 1 to 3: Anantkumar.S.Habib, Advocate, Hubli.

ORDER

This is a case filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act – 1986 raising certain deficiencies on part of the opposite parties and to direct them to pay compensation of more than Rs.3.00 Lakh claimed in the complaint in the interest of justice and equity.

2. Brief facts of case are that, the complainant being permanent resident of Chintamani, Kolar district is owner and possessor of Ashok Lay Land lorry bearing No.KA-39/A-833. He purchased said lorry by availing financial assistance with the 1st opposite party on 26-06-2007 agreeing to pay loan amount with interest in monthly equated installments and also executed necessary loan documents including tripartite agreement in favour of 1st opposite party and the 3rd opposite party, who being franchise of Sriram Transport Finance, Bangalore. Primary duty of the franchise is to recover loan from the complainant on behalf of the 1st opposite party. Thus in view of finance made by the 1st opposite party its name has been entered in RC book by RTO Kolar. Thereafter said entry of Sriram Transport Finance has been cancelled by RTO w.e.f. 20-07-2007; a fresh hypothecation agreement entered into between the complainant and the 3rd opposite party. Wherein also hypothecation has wrongly noted in favour of the 1st opposite party instead of 3rd opposite party. The complainant has paid some installments, i.e., in all Rs.1,51,000/- to the 3rd opposite party; inspite of that the 1st opposite party has made fraud while executing fresh HPA in favour of the 3rd opposite party by suppressing privety of contract and etc.,

3. It is further contended that during paddy harvesting season the complainant used to come to Karatagi along with his Ashok Lay land vehicle for transportation of paddy and left vehicle with Bheemambike Transport Company, Karatagi to transport paddy from Sindhanur area for transportation of paddy to shops of commission agents. While so transporting paddy from Karatagi to Rangapur village and after unloading paddy from the lorry on 21-04-2008 all of sudden 7 persons namely; (1) Moulakhan S/o: Anwarkhan, (2) Bashakhan S/o: Yakubkhan, (3) Baxisab, (4) Imran, (5) Akram, (6) Nowshad and (7) Sardar, came in Scorpio van with an intention to take away the lorry forcibly from possession of the complainant and took the same forcibly by putting instant fear of death to the complainant and lorry driver; thus they have committed offence of decoity. The criminal case has been filed against above said 7 persons at Karatagi police station in Crime No.87/2008 for an offence punishable U/s 395 IPC. Same day vehicle was seized by Karatagi police under P.F. No.74/2008, which is still under investigation. The opposite parties have no right or interest on said lorry and have abated above said persons for commission of offence of decoity. On account of their illegal act, the complainant has sustained heavy loss and damage from his business of transportation of paddy through his lorry since from 21-04-2008 till to this date and has sustained loss of Rs.2.00 Lakh; subsequently he has lost earnings on account of seizure of lorry by the police. Hence opponent No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to make loss sustained by the complainant till release of lorry from the Karatagi police along with the costs. With these and among other contention he has prayed to award compensation of Rs.3,80,000/- claimed in the complaint.

4. Upon service of summons, opposite parties appeared through counsel. The opponent No.1 & 2 filed written version, which has been adopted by the opponent No.3 as its written version by filing memo to that effect. The opponents have mainly contended that on 26-06-2007 the complainant has availed finance from the 1st opposite party to purchase vehicle in question by executing tripartite loan agreement between himself and the opposite party No.1 & 3. The 3rd opposite party is franchise of the 1st opposite party; son of the complainant Sri. Ahmadjan of Chintamani has stood as guarantor to the complainant in regard to prompt repayment of loan amount in terms of hypothecation agreement. The primary duty of the 3rd opposite party being franchise of the 1st opposite party is to demand and collect monthly installments from the complainant on behalf of the 1st opposite party. Inspite of repeated demands made by the opposite parties the complainant failed to keep-up repayment schedule promptly and became chronic defaulter. Hence in view of Clause-7 of HPA the opponents are entitled to repossess the vehicle for non-payment of monthly installments promptly and denied rest of allegations made in the complaint. They have further contended that the complainant being native of Chintamani in Kolar district and is borrower of the 1st opposite party; as such borrower is not a consumer within meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the C.P.Act and has no cause of action to file the present complaint before this Forum. It is false to say that the opposite parties have abated offence of decoity as alleged in the complaint. After seizing the lorry in question by the Karatagi police, the complainant has filed an application to release the vehicle to his custody, which came to be rejected. On the other hand, release application filed by the 1st opposite party came tobe allowed and vehicle has been released in favour of the 1st opponent. When this being so, the complaint is appears tobe empty; the complainant has not suffered any loss as alleged in the complaint. Absolutely there is no material to allege any deficiency on part of the opponents as alleged in the complaint. The complainant has filed false case, same may be dismissed with compensatory cost of Rs.25,000/- in the interest of justice and equity.

5. In order to prove allegations made in the complaint, the complainant Sri. Mahaboobsab S/o: Davoodsab, Tipunagar has filed his evidence on affidavit, same is treated as PW1. Sri. Praveer Shetty S/o: Sachidanand Shetty, Executive (Legal), R/o: Hubli has filed his evidence on affidavit, same is treated as RW1.

6. After closing side of the opposite parties, both parties remained absent, argument was not addressed, hence this case is taken-up for disposal today. On perusal of material placed by both parties, following points that arise for our consideration are;

1.Whether the complainant proves deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties as alleged in the complaint?

2.Whether the complainant is entitled to relief sought for?

Our findings to above points are as under;

1. Negative 2. As per final Order

// REASONS //
Point No. 1 & 2: -

7. It may be noted here that the complainant purchased Ashok Layland lorry No. KA-09/A-833 by availing financial assistance with the 1st opposite party at Bangalore agreeing to repay loan amount as stipulated in tripartite agreement. The 3rd opposite party is franchise of the 1st opposite party, who shall be primarily responsible for demand and collect monthly installments on behalf of the 1st opposite party. A careful perusal of allegations made in the complaint and that of affidavit evidence of PW1, which go to show that, he has paid in all Rs.1,51,000/- and remaining balance of Rs.2,00,000/- is to be cleared on or before 21-06-2009. Anyhow, the complainant has not questioned here regarding repayment schedule and etc., hence the plea of jurisdiction raised by the opposite parties has no application at all.

8. Though, the complainant is native of Chintamani in Kolar district; every year he used to come to Karatagi during paddy harvesting season to transport paddy from fields of farmers to shops of commission agents. Likewise, during April – 2008 he came to Karatagi and left lorry at Bhimambika Transport Company for transportation of paddy on hire basis. It is further case of the complainant that on 21-04-2008, while he was transporting loaded paddy at his lorry from Karatagi to Rangapur, all of a sudden 7 persons, (1) Moulakhan S/o: Anwarkhan, (2) Bashakhan S/o: Yakubkhan, (3) Baxisab, (4) Imran, (5) Akram, (6) Nowshad and (7) Sardar, came in Scorpio Van and took away lorry of the complainant by putting instant fear of death to him. Thus, thereby, they have committed offence of decoity of the said lorry; same day the complainant filed criminal case, against, above said persons at Karatagi police station in Cr.No.87/2008 punishable u/s 395 of IPC. Karatagi police have seized lorry of the complainant under P.F. No.74/2008. It means that the seized lorry is with court custody. It is not clear whether investigation has completed or not. Anyhow, lorry was seized upon the complaint filed by the complainant by the Karatagi police against above said persons. In that view of matter, the complainant do at liberty to make necessary efforts to get release lorry from the learned J.M.F.C. Gangavathi. However, he has claimed Rs.2.00 Lakhs compensation by way of damages and loss incurred on account of seizure of lorry w.e.f. 21-04-2008 to till filing of the present complaint together with interest at 18%. He has also claimed further loss of Rs.50,000/- upto release of the vehicle. It is not case of the complainant that the opposite parties forcibly and illegally repossessed the vehicle from custody of the complainant.

9. The opposite parties have contended in their written version that the complainant has not maintained repayment schedule regularly and has became chronic defaulter, as such they have every right to repossess the vehicle for non-payment of loan installments. The opposite parties have further contended in their written version that the complainant has also filed application to release seized lorry to his custody and so also they have also filed similar application to release lorry to their custody. The learned J.M.F.C. Gangavathi on hearing both sides has rejected application filed by the complainant and has released seized lorry in favour of the opposite party. The opponents have not produced certified copy of release order in above said case, but the complainant has not controverted these facts; When this being so, absolutely there is no deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties. Looked from any angle case of the complainant is appears to be empty and is not entitled to get damages from 21-04-2008 to till date as claimed at prayer column of the complaint. If really, the opposite parties have abated offence of decoity as alleged in the complaint, definitely he would entitle to get compensation / damages in above said criminal case. In this respect the complainant do at liberty to claim the same at that court. Prior to filing of this complaint, criminal case has been pending on file of the learned J.M.F.C. Gangavathi, as such there is no scope for parallel enquiry here. On this ground only the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be rejected; in the result we answer point No.1 & 2 in the negative.

In view of our finding on point No.1 & 2, we pass following;

ORDER


The complaint filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act – 1986 is hereby dismissed. Under peculiar circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to cost.

Shekharayya S/o Gurushantayya Naikal,

Age: 50 years,

R/o Naikal,

Tq. Shahapur, Dist. Gulbarga.


// Versus //


OPPONENT:- 1) The Branch Manager,

Sriram Transport Finance Co., Ltd.,

Raichur Branch,

Dist. RAICHUR.


2) Managing Director,

Sriram Transport Finance Co., Ltd.,

Regd. Office: 123, Anagappa Nisekan Street,

CHENNAI-600 001.

(Tamil Nadu)


: : O R D E R : :

1. This is a complaint filed by the complainant by name Shekharayya against the O.P.No.1 and 2 u/s.12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct the O.Ps. to return six blank cheques to him and to issue directions to O.Ps. to encash the said cheques and not to misuse those cheques and to return rent-cum-sale agreement to him.

2. The brief facts of the complainant case are that;

He purchased lorry brg.No.AP-02/T-7358 from finance advanced by O.P.No.1 for Rs.2,60,000/- on 8.11.2006. In that regard, there was an agreement in between O.P.No.1 with him regarding rent-cum-sale-agreement as a security to the amount advanced by the O.P.No.1. He handed over six blank cheques to O.P.No.1 along with original records of the vehicle. There was an agreement to return the documents of the vehicle within 15 days, but O.P.No.1 not returned those documents as per the agreement. In the said circumstances, he kept lorry idle and he sustained heavy loss. He requested orally as well as by giving legal notice to them for to return the documents singed and blank cheques, but O.P.No.1 and 2 shown their negligence in returning the documents as well as cheques and thereby both O.Ps. found guilty under deficiency in their services, accordingly he filed this complaint among other grounds.


3. O.P.No.1 and 2 appeared, filed their Written version by denying all the allegations of complainant. According to them, complainant availed loan from O.P.No.1 by executing loan-cum-hypothecation agreement dated 20.11.2006 to purchase the said lorry. The loan availed by him is for commercial purpose, as such complainant is not a consumer and this Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. Complainant and his guarantor have jointly signed the said agreement and handed over the filled cheques to it towards installments of the said loan. Contrary to the loan-cum-hypothecation agreement, complainant sold the vehicle to others. Complainant has to pay an amount of Rs.2,70,499/- out of the said loan amount. In order to avoid his liability under the agreement, he filed this complaint with false allegations. There was no deficiency in services on their part, accordingly they prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grounds.


4. In view of the pleadings of the parties, now the points that arises for our consideration and determination are that,

(1) Whether complainant proves that, he executed rent-cum-sale agreement on 8.11.2006 by advancing loan amount of Rs.2,60,000/- for to purchase of his lorry brg.No.AP-02/T-7358 and handed over six blank cheques with all necessary documents of the vehicle with a promise to return the documents of the vehicle within 15 days, but O.Ps. not returned the documents of the vehicle in spite of oral and written requests and thereby both O.Ps. found guilty under deficiency in their services?

(2) Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in this complaint?

(3) To what reliefs complainant is entitled for?

5. Our findings on the above points are as under;

(1) In negative.
(2) In negative.
(3) In view of the findings on Point Nos.1 and 2, we proceed to pass the final order for the following;

: : R E A S O N S : :

6. Point No:1 and 2 :

To prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit evidence of complainant was filed, he was noted as PW-1, documents Exh.P-1 to P-3 are marked. Cross examination affidavit of O.P. to PW-1 is filed. On the other hand, affidavit evidence of Sr. Manager (Legal) of O.P.No.2 was filed, he was noted as RW-1. O.P.No.1 filed a Memo by adopting the said affidavit evidence of RW-1. Cross examination affidavit of complainant for RW-1 is filed. No documents marked.


7. As per the case of complainant, he entered into a rent-cum-sale agreement on 8.11.2006 by taking advance of Rs.2,20,000/- with interest for the purchase of his lorry brg.No.AP-02/T-7358 from O.P.No.1. Further case of him is that, he handed over six blank cheques to O.P.No.1 as a security to the loan advanced and all documents of the vehicle. No doubt this fact is stated by him in his affidavit evidence PW-1. He placed reliance on documents Exh.P-1 to P-3. Exh.P-1 is not at all rent-cum-sale agreement as contended in his complaint and in his evidence.

It is a receipt passed by O.P.No.1 regarding the receipt of Rs.40,000/- towards the loan amount of Rs.2,60,000/- and it shows the balance amount of loan Rs.2,20,000/-. The recital of it, is not stating either rent-cum-sale agreement and sale of the said lorry, so his pleadings and evidence not corroborating with his own document Exh.P-1. Exh.P-2 is the final notice before seizure of the vehicle by the O.P.No.1. It not discloses the fact that the execution of said agreement as contended by the complainant. Contrary, it discloses the hypothecation of the said lorry with O.P.No.1. Exh.P-3 the copy of the passbook which is not at all helpful for the complainant to prove the fact that, he entered into a rent-cum-sale agreement with O.P.No.1 as pleaded.

8. Further no documents out coming to establish the fact that O.Ps. misused the cheques handed over by him as a security amount. There is no relationship of consumer and trader or service provider, as such we are of the view that, the allegations made by the complainant in his complaint as well as in his affidavit evidence not established either regarding negligence of the O.P.No.1 and 2 nor with respect to deficiency in their services towards him, accordingly we answered point No.1 in negative. In view of the findings on Point No.1, complainant is not entitled for any one of the reliefs as prayed in this complaint, accordingly we answered Point No.1 and 2 in negative

9. Point No.3 :

In view of the findings on Point No.1 and 2, we proceed to pass the following;

: : O R D E R : :

Complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed.

Respected sir, I am having a loan account for my maxi cab vehicle reg. no. TN 49 AA 6001 at your finance company from 25.10.2010. My loan account number is NGLFR0010250001. This vehicle is ceased by your agent M/S. Sun auto finance because of bending dues with out any legal notice on 10.05.2011. After thar I got a message on 07.06.2011 that I have to pay for the current due. This vehicle is sold to somebody else with out joint appliation. Still the vehicle is running on my name. If any causes comes while driving are or any illegal activityn from the buyer your agent and you are the whole responsibility for the broblems. This is the thing I am informing you. Thanks.