SRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO.LTD V/S Smt.Shabnam Begum W/o Syed Peer Pasha - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Bidar

CC/41/2013

Smt.Shabnam Begum W/o Syed Peer Pasha - Complainant(s)

Versus

SRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO.LTD - Opp.Party(s)

SANJAY MATHPATI

30 Jun 2016

ORDER

::BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT BIDAR::

C.C.No. 41/2013

Date of filing : 20/08/2013

Date of disposal : 30/06/2016

P R E S E N T:- (1) Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata,

B.A., LL.B

President.

(2) Shri. Shankrappa (Halilpurgi)

B.A.LL.B.

Member.

COMPLAINANT: Smt. Shabnam Begum W/o: Late Syed Peer Pasha

Age: 48 years, Occ: Household,

R/o: H.No. 12-109, Kaman Base,

Basavakalyan, Bidar

(By Sri. Mathapati Sanjay, Advocate)

VERSUS

OPPONENT/S :- 1. The Registered Office,

Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd.,

3^rd Floor, Mukambika Complex, No.4,

Lady Desika Road, Mylapore,

Chennai – 600 004.

2. The Branch Office,

Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd.,

2^nd Floor, Above Axis Bank,

Near Dr. Holkunde Hospital,

Tripurant Road, Basavakalyan – 585 327.

3. Sriram Life Insurance Co.Ltd.,

No. 3-6-478, 3^rd Floor, Anand Estate,

Liberty Road, Himayath Nagar,

Hyderabad – 500 029.

(O.P.No.1, 2 & 3 By Sri. Vaijinath.S.Zalki, Advocate.)

:: J UD G M E N T : :

By Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, President.

The complainant is before this Forum alleging deficiency in service and unethical trade practices against all the Ops and the gist of her complaint is as follows;

2. That, she is the legally wedded wife of one late Syed Peer Pasha, who has expired on 31-10-2012 suffering from ailment of liver cancer. During the life time of late Peer Pasha, he had acquired a lorry bearing No. KA 32 A 4563 and the Ops NO. 1 and 2 were financiers, to the deceased for acquisition of the said Lorry. As per her, the OP No.3, which is another entity of the same coglomorate was suggested to offer a policy captioned as “Shriram Credit shield plan” by the OP No.1 and 2 and was accepted by deceased, for which extra premium was paid by the deceased Lorry owner Peer Pasha. The coverage was up to a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- or the loan amount, which ever was less.

3. It is further the case of the complainant/claimant that, her husband had availed a loan from the OP No.1 and 2 to be culminated in a sum of Rs.8,84,727/- inclusive of interest vide agreement No. BSBKL 000323000 on dated: 23-03-2010. The amount of the loan aforementioned was agreed to be liquidated in 44 instalments, spreaded over a period from 23-03-2010 to 05-10-2013.

4. It is further the canvassing of the complainant that, as per the policy “Shriram Credit Shield Plan” issued by the OP No.3 in collaborating with the other two Ops, should the policy holder dies during the subsistence of the loan repayment, the OP No.3 had to reimburse the unpaid loan to the other two Ops’ satisfying the liability of the borrower, and the borrower was only required to pay the instalments of the borrowings to the OP NO. 1 and 2 till his death. We have seen the attested copy of the said policy submitted by the OP No.3, bearing GN010900000214 filed along with evidence affidavit on 08-12-2015, wherein the coverage amount has been specified as Rs.4,60,000/-. Cover starts on date 10-06-2010 and ends at date 10-05-2015. The deceased borrower then was under due insurance cover at the time of his death on 31-10-2012.

5. The complainant further avers that, at the time of availing the loan to acquire the lorry and also availing the insurance cover, her late husband was quite hale and healthy. But from August – 2012, late Peer Pasha developed ailment of severe stomach pain, availed treatment at Basavakalyana without any reprieve. He was taken for further treatment and management to Hyderabad, wherein a diagnosis of liver cancer ailement was made. The complainant informed the OP No.1 and 2 about the sickness of her late husband Peer Pasha.

6. It is further the case of the complainant that on account of the illness of such magnitude, he might have been an unwilling defaulter paying the instalments to the OP No.1 and 2 and a request was made by him to the Lenders ( OP No. 1 & 2) to extend the time limit of loan repayment, which according to the complainant was conceded by the Lenders and they induced the deceased to sign several papers, deliberating that, hi s consent was required for extension of time for loan repayment. The complainant claims that, her husband had signed all the papers, suggested by the OP NO. 1 & 2 without pondering over the contents in good faith.

7. The complainant further avers that, after the demise of her husband on 31-10-2012, she approached the OP NO. 1 & 2 to receive the instalments of the loan due till 31-10-2012, close the hypothecation agreement and issue Clearance Certificate about the captioned lorry. Only at that point, the OP No.1 and 2 raised a claim regarding the closing of initial hypothecation agreement, about the new hypothecation agreement purported to have been executed by her late husband afresh, vide No. BSVKL 0209160005 dated 18-09-2012 for an excess amount, which as per the complainant was a fraudulent one, without conscious consent of her late husband and hence the same is void per se, not binding on the deceased or his LRS. The amount of loan in the modified second agreement was never disbursed to the late borrower Peer Pasha, is blatantly illegal and is not binding. However, the complainant declares that, she is ready to live upto the terms of the initial agreement executed by her late husband. She has requested the OP No. 1 and 2 to receive the amounts due till 31-10-2012 (date of death of the husband), but the OPS’ without considering her lawful offer and claims had illegally seized the lorry in question at Hubli and are now trying to dispose off the same.

8. The complainant, coming to know of the plans of the OP No.1 & 2, had got issued a legal notice on 1-3-2013, offering to remit the instalments till the death of her husband on 31-10-2012, which was received by them on 2/4-03-2013 but the Ops never come forward t receive the amount nor they had bothered to reply the notice.

9. Going a further step ahead, the OP No.1 & 2, concealing the fact of death of the original loanee Peer Pasha, had approached the jurisdictional ARTO, Basavakalyana, Bidar to struck of the name of the R.C. owner and to register the vehicle in their name. On receipt of the notice, the complainant had lodged a protest with the Transport Authorities.

10. The complainant further avers that, all the original documents such as hypothecation agreement, vehicle documents, Insurance policy etc., are in the custody of OP No.1 & 2 and they be directed to produce the same before the Forum for perusal.

11. Lastly, the complainant alleges that, the lorry was seized illegally by OP No.1 & 2 on 29-01-2013, which has caused a monthly loss to her at Rs.40,000/- culminating at a total figure of Rs.2,80,000/-, which she prays to be recovered in her favour from the OP No.1 & 2 and she prays further that, she be permitted to pay the instalment dues till the death of her husband on 31-10-2012 and the lorry be restored to her. She also claims further relief(s) as may be decided by the Forum.

12. On receipt of notice, the OPS’had put up their appearance and after few hiccups have field their written versions.

13. The OP No.1 & 2, pleading absence of adverse interests have preferred to file common written versions, the gist of which are described underneath;

They claim that, the averments of the complaint are arbitrary baseless, made with ulterior motives to gain pecuniary advantage. There has been no deficiency of service as alleged, the complainant is not specific and her complaint is replete with “suppresio very and suggestion falsi”. The OPS’ further claim that, the complaint is vexatious perse and is liable to be dismissed in limine.

Following the camouflaged denials stated supra, the OPs in their parawise reply, have admitted to the fact of the ownership of the captioned lorry by late Peer Pasha, the former’s extension of loan and their manoeuvres in providing “Shriram Credit Shield Plan Policy” to the tune of Rs.10 lacks or the loan amount whichever was lower. They further admit that, the loan amount of Rs.8,84,727/- was sanctioned by them vide loan agreement No. BSKBL 000323000 dtd: 23-03-2010 and the vehicle was hypothecated in favour of the OPs to be liquidated in 44 instalments spreaded over a period from 23-03-2010 to 05-10-2013. The Shriram Credit Shield Plan policy was extended to the loan agreement for the full term through the OP No. 1 & 2 deny their role is obtaining the same (sic).

In para – 2 of the versions, the OP No. 1 & 2 have resorted to jugglery of words to get the entire issue murky. In one hand, they are claiming that, on the death of the borrower/policy holder, the OP No.3 was required to pay the available assured/insured amount to the lenders. On the other hand, they deny the realistic assertions of the complainant that till the death of the insured, either he himself or his L.R.S are required to pay the instalment dues. We may pointout here to the age old legal maxium “Qui Approbate, nemo reprobate”squarely applies against the OP No.1 & 2. The contents of Para – 3 in the version also sufferes from the same legal maxim as quoted above.

In Para – 4 of the common version, the OP No.1 & 2 admit about the good health of the deceased borrower/policy holder Peer Pasha but deny about their consent to extend the schedule of loan repayment. It at all this one sided version of the OPs is to be accepted as true, where was the scope of restructuring the loan repayment vide another subsequent agreement?

The contents of para – 5 of the versions denying everything appears to be clever ploy of the OPs to turn their illegal seizure of the vehicle at Hubli sacrosanct. The record reveals and the parties are in agreement that, the original borrower Peer Pasha died due to liver cancer on 31.10-2012. The logic and inference follows that, as on 18-09-2012 (ther date of extention of the second agreement No. BSVKL0209160005) he would have been under excruating pain in paltiative care with all likelihood of administration of opiate drugs affecting his power of reasoning. How then the second agreement, even though might have been executed by an individual on sedative drugs (opiates) could be binding? Moreover, the original insurance coverage to the tune of Rs. 10 lacks, how can be put to an end, without even the presence or repudiation of the OP No.3?

Para – 6 of the versions, admits the receipt of legal notices but claims justification of the inaction which is ridiculous perse.

Coming to the para – 7 of the versions, the OP No.1 & 2 deny about applying to the Transport Authorities to effect the change in the ownership of the vehicle in the R.C.Book. Knowing fully well the death of the original borrower late Peer Pasha. We have before us a document submitted by the claimant as Ex.P.21. This document is dated: 27-05-2013 addressed by the OP No.1 & 2 to the A.R.T.O. Basavakalyana seeking fresh certificate in their names. In the previous para – 6, the OPs’have admitted the receipt of notice regarding the death of borrower/insured. How can then they, on 27-05-2013 filed a concocted application before the Transport Authorities (Ex.P.21)? This action clearly established their miaculpa.

Further surmising the contents of the OP No. 1 & 2 in paras 8, 9 and other subsequent pleadings, we find they have questioned the jurisdiction of this Forum, have denied the availability of vehicle documents with them, have claimed that the deceased borrower Peer Pasha has availed the loan for commercial purpose, ousting the jurisdiction of this Forum and further that late Peer Pasha has availed several other loans to acquire other transport vehicle and hence he was a fleet owner. The OPs further claim that, neither the deceased borrower or his LRS can be construed as consumers to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum.

14. SURPRISINGLY HOWEVER, THE OPS No. 1 & 2 HAVE NEVER FURNISHED THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS TO PROVE LATE PEER PASHA, AS A FLEET OWNER AS CLAIMED. (Emphasis supplied).

15. At the cost of repetition, it may be emphasized that, at Page – 7 of the version, the OP No.1 & 2 have admitted to have paid a premium of Rs.19,104/- for the floater policy and the issuance of policy No. 0499010 vide SLIC Serial No. K 30310272.

16. Spear heading their soliloquy, at the same page – 7 at para – 5 though in initio the OP No.1 & 2 admit about the probable benefits to be accrued to a policy holder, at the next portion of the same para have resorted to a cacophony. They assert that, the borrower Peer Pasha (late) since was a defaulter and was reminded umpteen number of times about the same as a result of which the deceased borrower approached them to close the loan agreement No. BSVKL003230001 to avoid over due interest and had preferred a restructuring of the loan and declined to purchase a fresh Shriram Credit Shield Policy afresh. The question now arises, when the previous Shield policy purchased by the Peer Pasha was valid upto 10-05-2015, where was the necessity of purchasing another policy? The obvious inference then would be that, the OP No.1 & 2 hand in glove were attempting another act of skulldudgery to knockout same more amount from the hapless, ailing borrower, which could not culminate providentially.

17. Be it whatever, the OP No.1 & 2 admit that, the request of Peer Pasha was conceded, his previous loan account No. BSVKL0003230001 was restructured as BSKVL 0209160005 and a new hypothecation was made. An amount of Rs.5,50,000/- was sanctioned for which an amount of Rs.7,32,173/- (with interest @ 11.04079% p.a.) was to be collected back at the long run. It is further asserted that, out of the sanctioned loan amount of Rs.5,50,000/- a sum of Rs.5,30,000/- was adjusted towards closure of the old loan account. Out of the balance amount of Rs.20,000/-, it is claimed a sum of Rs.12,500/- was paid by a/c payee cheque to Peer Pasha while, Rs.7,500/- was adjusted towards service and documentation charges. A mind bungling scenario is evident here. The poor cancer patient was only paid peanuts and was saddled with a massive liability of Rs.5,50,000/- and the case is perhaps worst than that of a bonded labour. In the second sub para of Para -5 (at page 8) the OP No.1 & 2 claim that, the insurer OP No.3, had not paid them a dime due to non-existance of any floater policy of the nature discussed earlier (sic).

18. Proceeding further in para – 6 of the version, the OP No. 1 & 2 deny the illegal seizure of the lorry, brand the borrower as acute defaulter and justify the seizure as per contention 6(l) of the loan agreement.

19. In para – 7 of the version, the OP No.1 & 2 vociferously deny the induced execution of the second agreement and they further assert that to avoid payment of outstandingly dues of Rs.7,73,765/-, the present complainant has filed the case, drawing an inference of the conclusion of the Hon’ble National Commission purported to have been reported in (2011) 4 CPR 323 NC. However, a silver lining is glaring from the statement at Subpara of Para – 7 that, the OPs are ready to give NOC and other documents pertaining to the lorry under reference.

20. In para 8 of the version, the OP No.1 & 2 deny about the deficiency of service.

21. In Para – 9 of the version, they question the jurisdiction of this Forum under the pretext that, as per the agreement of the complainant’s late husband, vide clause 15, any dispute arising out of the agreements was to be referred to an arbitrator at Chennai for proper adjudication. We propose, at a later stage, to decide the same as the preliminary issue interalia.

22. Lastly, in a nurshell, the OP No. 1 & 2 pray to dismiss the complaint with costs, declare that, the complainant is not a consumer, there is no deficiency of service and the complainant is not entitled to claim any relief and so on.

23. After traversing through the lengthy, labyrinthic contentions of the OP No.1 &2, it is now incumbent upon us to analyse the defence of the OP No.3, who has been hunting with hounds and running with hares. Analysing the voluminous documents, averments and pleadings, we have no hesitation to hold that the Trinity (s) i.e., all the OPs are part of a single coglomorate, inspite of the fact that, wolves have adorned sheeps skin.

24. The OP No.3 has filed its written version on 08-12-2015, in which it is claimed that, the late husband of the complainant had availed credit from the other two OPS to acquire a lorry for commercial purpose, thereby to adjudicate the case as a consumer disputes barred. It is further claimed that, the complainant is not a consumer. The OP No.3, however admits that the husband of the complainant had availed a credit shield plan and was eligible for the coverage of the loan. It is further averred that, the loan was restrucuted and the complainant was refunded a proportionate premium of Rs.1910/- during September – 2012.

25. The OP No.3 further avers that, the complainant had taken life cover under Shriram Credit Shield Plan against the said loan ID No. BSVKL 0010060015 under Master Policy No. GNo. 109000021 vide Member policy No. MN 110812000307049 for insured amount of Rs. 4,60,000/- starting from 10-06-2010, wherein the life cover reduces each month as per the risk cover schedule. Now, the million dollar question to be answered by the OP No.3 and his cronies that, when the premium was collected at the first instance for a coverage of Rs.10,00,000/- or the amount of loan, whichever is less, and the initial loan amount sanctioned by the conniving parties i.e., OP No.1 & 2 was in a sum of Rs.8,84,727/- (inclusive of interest) as averred to by them in page – 2 of their versions, how at all the OP No.3 could fix the cove rage at Rs.4,60,000/- as evident in the policy submitted by him? Here is a clear cut case of “Aliababa and Chalis Chor”.

26. Next, we see in para – 6 of the version of OP No.3 that, an amount of Rs.3,27,940/- has been paid to OP No.1 & 2 vide Cheque No. 6358 dated: 19-01-2013 of H.D.F.C. Bank, consequent upon the death intimation of the policy holder late Peer Pasha, the original loanee, which fact has been no where revealed by the OP No.1 & 2 and their culpa, criminal intentions to deceive the public, consumers and sundry are glaring.

27. Proceeding ahead, the OP No.3 in para – 7 of the versions claims to have fulfilled its obligations as insurer and seeks complete exoneration from further prosecution from trail.

28. Here, before us is perhaps one of the most perplexed case of enormous magnitude, after the promulgation of C.P.Act in 1986, unparalleled in any manner. At one side, there is a hapless widow, losing her husband by tryst of destiny, and on the other side a trinity of Shy locks as described in the drama of “Merchant of venice” by Shakespere, who are hell bent to cut a pound of flesh from the chest of the borrower.

29. The pathetic corollary of the case in hand props up, coaxing us to answer a number of valid points to ponder, basing on the age old legal maxim “Actus Curiae naminem gravabit”. The act of the court shows prejudice against none and hence, we fix the following points for consideration.

30. Hereinbefore, we have dealt with the origina and genesis of the case in most elaborate manner. Considering the contentions of the parties, the following questions arise for our consideration.

Is this Forum precluded to try this case as Consumer dispute as asserted by the OP No.1 & 2 in para – 9 of their versions claiming about an arbitration dispute?

Whether the deceased borrower late Syed Peer Pasha was a ‘consumer’ as defined in the Act and further as to whether the complainant being his legally wedded wife is entitled to maintain the present case?

Whether the case law of the Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2011 (4) CPR – 323 would be squarely applicable to the case in hand?

Whether all the OPs’have been fair in their dealings and there has been no deficiency in service?

What orders?

OUR FINDINGS TO THE;

Point No. (a) – In the Negative

(b) – In the Affirmative

(d) – In the Negative

(e) – As per final orders, Owing to the

following:

// REASONS //

(a) Notwithstanding the fact that, the OP No.1 & 2 in para – 9 at Page – 9 of their versions have referred to an arbitration clause in Clause – 15 of their agreement, the fact remains, in the same clause, it has been specified that, any dispute arising out of the arbitrations award, can be raised at a Court at Basavakalyana, which is in the District of Bidar. We are also observing, the loan cum hypothecation agreement among the parties were signed at Basavakalyana on 23-03-2010 in the case of first one and on 18-09-2012 in the case of restructured one. So, by all respect, the basic cause of action has arisen at Bidar. The counsel for the complainant vociferously brought to our notice the contents of Section – 3 of the C.P.Act, which reads as follows;

“3. Act not in derogation of any other laws. The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. (Emphasis supplied).

In the case of Jagadamba Rice Mills V/s U.O.I. – 1991 (1) CPJ – 273, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has decided that, irrespective of the existence of any arbitration clause, the Consumer Fora can proceed with the trial of the case. Hence we answer the point No.1 in the Negative.

(b) Despite the high handed, preposterous claim of the OP No. 1 & 2 that, late Peer Pasha was having a number of vehicles, was a fleet owner and was doing commercial operation, thereby loosing the status of a consumer, not a scrap of paper has been produced by the OPs to that effect. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that, deceased Peer Pasha was plying the truck for his livelihood prior to his affliction due to liver cancer and he is a consumer as defined u/sec. 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act – 1986. After his sad demise in October – 2012, his legally wedded wife offering to pay the outstanding dues also legally steps into his shoes and very well can maintain the present complaint and we answer this point in affirmative.

(c) A hoopla has been raised by quoting the ratio of the Hon’ble National Commission vide reported judgment in 2011 (4) CPR – 323. The ratio of that judgment was regarding belated filing of a Revisions Petition and its ratio is not applicable to the case in hand for which this point in answered in the Negative.

(d) In the instant case, the widow of the deceased borrower had truthfully came out with all relevant facts, regarding the loan availed by her husband, which was to be paid in 44 instalments from 23-03-2010 to 05-10-2013 and further that, in connivance all the OPs “Shriram Credit Shield Plan Policy” was sold to her husband, the duration of which was for five years as per the copy of the certificate issued by the OP No.3. Unfortunately, from August – 2012, the deceased borrower got afflicted by liver cancer, thereby crippling him to maintain his income level and with all clear and honest intentions he had requested to extend the repayment schedule of the loan. At that time also, the credit shield policy stated above was quite alive. The OP No.1 & 2 adopting a strange logic, granted him a restructured loan of Rs.5,50,000/- appropriated a sum of Rs.5,30,000/- towards the previous loan and a further sum of Rs.7,500/- towards documentation and service charges. In other words, the borrower was saddled with a mammoth liability of Rs.5,50,000/- but got peanuts amounting to Rs.12,500/-. What kind of honest business is this?

(e) Further, as is revealed from Para – 1 of the versions of the OP No.1 & 2, the Sriram Credit Shield Plan Policy was designed and sold matching to the entire loan amount or upto Rs.10 lacks, which ever was less. As per the admission of the OPs, the loan amount in this case was Rs.8,84,727/- (last line of para-1). How then, their compatriot the OP No.3 could issue a certificate of insurance for an insurance amount of Rs.4,60,000/- only.

(f) The next big question arises, the OP No.3 in its written arguments at para – 8 has claimed to have paid a sum of Rs.3,27,940/- after the death of the insured (a reduced amount as per monthly risk cover schedule) vide Chq.No. 6358 dated: 10-01-2013 of H.D.F.C. Bank, which has gone undisputed. What happened to this amount? Have not the OP No.1 & 2 received a double whammy, at the cost of the poor widow. What better deficiency of service, unethical trade practice, can be witnessed under the Sun? Hence we answer point No. (d) in negative.

(g) We have meticulously studied the entire contents of the file, averments, counter claims, contents of documents produced by the respective parties. Nowhere, we have found any notice has been served upon the borrower by the OP Financers. Rather, in the document Ex.R.1 filed by the Lenders, we note clause No.1.9 and 16 are highly arbitrary, uncivilised and preposterous. We further find appendixes as Schedule III to Ex.R1 and R2, wherein it has been mentioned under the head of the Additional interest payable by way of liquidated damage @ 3% p.m. We wonder which authority in this country confers a right of this shylock’s syndrome on the OPs?. Only a banana republic could perhaps do the same.

(h) The written arguments of the parties are only rhetoric’s of their self serving attitudes, not to be given any credence.

The documents submitted by the parties have been listed at the end of this order, and basing upon the analysis(s) of the case, we proceed to pass the following order (s).

: :ORDER : :

The complainant be permitted to pay the loan amount dues to the OPs till the death of her husband on 31-10-2012, consequent upon which, the OPs are directed to deliver her the possession of the Lorry bearing No. KA-32 A 4563 in perfect, immaculate and ready to operate condition. The accounting to be done by a Chartered Financial Analyst and not by any officer or agent of the OP No. 1 & 2.

All the OPs having resorted to unethical trade practice, which is evident in this case, might have also deceitfully acted against numerous consumers. In this court itself, there are several cases against the OPs under considerations. Hence acting u/sec. 14 (hb) of the C.P.Act - 1986, we direct that, each of the OPs deposit a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) only in this Forum towards Consumer Welfare Fund.

The office is directed to transmit a copy of this order, together with the copies of Ex.R.1 R.2, with proper paginating to the Reserve Bank of India, N.B.F.C. Division, Mumbai to analyse the propriety of the actions of the OPs (altogether) and initiate appropriate actions at their discretions and intimate the same to this court within six months from the date of this order.

The OPs are directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) as compensation and a litigations expenses of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) to the complainant.

A copy of this order be transmitted to the Asst. Director, Information & Publicity, Government of Karnataka, Near Railway Station, Bidar for wide publicity in all vernacular papers in Karnataka & English papers throughout the nation, within seven days of receipt of the copy of the order for consumer awareness, failing which, proceedings for dereliction of duty would be initiated against him as per law.

Copy of Judgment be emailed to

Four weeks time is granted to the OPs to comply this order.

( Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 30^th day of June 2016. )

Sd/- Sd/-

Sri. Shankrappa H. Sri. Jagannath Prasad

Member President

DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE PARTIES (COPIES)

COMPLAINANT

1.	Ex.P.1	Certificate of Registration of the vehicle KA-32 A 4563
2.	Ex.P.2	Death Certificate of Peer Pasha.
3.	Ex.P.3	Office Copy of Legal Notice dated: 01-03-2013.
4.	Ex.P.4	Four Postal receipts.
5.	Ex.P.5	Postal acknowledgment forms (three number & combined)
6.	Ex.P.6	Money receipt dated: 10-04-2012.
7.	Ex.P.7	Money receipt dated: 28-09-2011
8.	Ex.P.8	Money receipt dated: 27-09-2011
9.	Ex.P.9	Money receipt dated: 04-08-2011
10.	Ex.P.10	Money receipt dated: 12-07-2011
11.	Ex.P.11	Money receipt dated: 10-06-2011 Totally remitted by
12.	Ex.P.12	Money receipt dated: 12-04-2011 late Syed Peer Pasha

13.	Ex.P.13	Money receipt dated: 18-03-2011 Rs. 4,78,100/-
14.	Ex.P.14	Money receipt dated: 07-01-2011
15.	Ex.P.15	Money receipt dated: 13-12-2010
16.	Ex.P.16	Money receipt dated: 03-07-2010
17.	Ex.P.17	Money receipt dated: 06-05-2010
18.	Ex.P.18	Cheque of AXIS BANK (Drawee not mentioned)
19.	Ex.P.19	Representation to Asst. R.T.O. Basavakalyana dated: 07-06-2013
20.	Ex.P.20	Notice of the A.R.T.O. to Syed Peer Pasha (Loanee) dated: 29-05-2013 (much after death).
21.	Ex.P.21	Application of Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd., to A.R.T.O. Basavakalyana dated: 27-05-2013 (Death of Peer Pasha not mentioned)
OPPOSITE PARTIES
1.	Ex.R.1	Loan cum Hypothecation agreement dated: 23-10-2010 with appendixes (Spl. noting at Schedule III)
2.	Ex.R.2	Loan cum Hypothecation agreement of restructured loan dated: 27-10-2012 (Spl. Noting at Schedule III) of the document.
3.	Ex.R.3	Certificate of Insurance dated: 31-03-2010.
4.	Ex.R.4	R.C. Book of vehicle No. KA 32 A 4563.
5.	Ex.R.5	Insurance Certificate for the above said vehicle.
6.	Ex.R.6	National permit of the above said vehicle.
7.	Ex.R.7	Authorisation certificate of N.P. (Goods) issued by Secretary, R.T.A. Government of Karnataka.
8.	Ex.R.8	Summary of loans for vehicle No. KA 32 A 4563.
9.	Ex.R.9	Details of agreement dated: 23-11-2013 by Shriram Finance.
10.	Ex.R.10	Certificate of Insurance issued by OP No.3
11.	Ex.R.11	Instrument of G.P.A.