M.N.Lingaraju - Complainant(s)




31 Oct 2006


No.845, 10th Main, New Kantharaj Urs Road, G.C.S.T. Layout, Kuvempunagar, Mysore - 570 009
consumer case(CC) No. CC/06/267









Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!


Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number


Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.


IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE PRESENT: 1. Shri.M.G.Hiremath B.Sc., L.L.B (Spl.)- President 2. G.V.Balasubramanya B.E., LL.M - Member CC 267/06 DATED 31-10-2006 Complainant M.N.Lingaraju S/o Late M.L.Naganna, Sangam Road, Hullahalli, Nanjangud Taluk. (By Sri.M.L.N., Advocate) Vs. Opposite Party TATA MOTOR FINANCE LTD., No.189/10K, Corner Stone, Ramavilas Road, Mysore. (EXPARTE) Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service Date of filing of complaint : 25.09.2006 Date of appearance of O.P. : EXPARTE Date of order : 31-10-2006 Duration of Proceeding : -- PRESIDENT MEMBER Sri.G.V.Balasubramanya, Member, 1. The Complainant purchased a TATA 407 CLB Truck from Prerana Motors on 07.09.2000 by borrowing an amount of Rs.3 lakhs from the Opposite party by entering into a hire purchase agreement. The loan was repayable in 3 years. The Complainant paid the monthly installments regularly and according to him, the loan was completely cleared on 07.08.2003. After clearing the loan, the Complainant sought NOC and other documents of the vehicle from the Opposite party and also requested for cancellation of the hypothecation noted in the registration certificate of the vehicle. Instead of doing the needful the Opposite party sent a computer generated print out dated 10.03.2006 claiming that the Complainant still owes them Rs.8,981.19/-. The Complainant met the Opposite party and explained that he has repaid the entire loan amount. However, the Opposite party did not respond favourably to the pleas of the Complainant. A legal notice issued on 10.07.2006 was also not replied. Hence, this Complaint has been filed. He has given a schedule of money payable to the Opposite party and money he actually paid. According to him, he has paid an excess amount of Rs.1,023/-. Before the Forum, the Complainant has claimed damages of Rs.2 lakhs apart from a direction to the Opposite party to issue NOC of the vehicle. 2. The notice sent from the Forum has been received by the Opposite party. But there was no representation on the appointed day. Hence, the Opposite party was placed exparte. 3. Only one point arises for our consideration. Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite party has caused deficiency in service by not returning the documents of the vehicle and by not issuing the NOC? REASONS 4. The Complainant has produced Proforma Invoice dated 28.08.2000 to evidence the purchase of the vehicle. The letter issued by the Opposite party dated 15.01.2001 evidences the hire purchase transactions between the parties. As per the letter, the Complainant was required to repay Rs.3,91,101/- in 35 installments first of which starting on 07.10.2000. The statement dated 07.08.2003 given by the Opposite party shows an over due amount of Rs.10,954/- and accrued over due charges of Rs.537/-. After this, the Complainant wrote a letter on 20.08.2003, stating that he had repaid the entire amount and therefore, the NOC must be issued along with the documents of the vehicle. He has also stated in the said letter that an amount of Rs.20,000/- had been deducted towards insurance for the years 2001-02 and 2002-03 though the actual amount of premium was Rs.17,252/- only. He has painstakingly produced receipts commencing from October 2000 to July 2003, issued by the Opposite party for having received the loan installments. As the Opposite party has failed to deny the allegation made the affidavit filed by the complainant has to be admitted. The Opposite party has also not explained, how the Complainant still owes him Rs.8,981.19/-. The Complainant has categorically stated that as against 5,21,890/- payable by him, he has paid Rs.5,22,913/-. Thus according to him, he has over paid Rs.1,023/-. But according to the Opposite party’s statement, the total payable is Rs.5,30,508.19/- against which the Complainant has paid Rs.5,21,527/- thus, he has still to pay Rs.8,981/-. 5. The Opposite party’s statement does not disclose the details under the head “expenses and over due charges”. The statement also mentions that as against Rs.3,91,101/- payable by the Complainant, he has paid only Rs.3,86,913/-. Both these figures have been admitted by the Complainant. The discrepancy is thus in the figures mentioned against the down payment and the insurance. The Complainant has produced the insurance certificate for the years 2001-02 and 2002-03. The total premium paid is Rs.17,252/- this amount does not tally with the amount shown in the statement of the Opposite party. Whereas the Complainant has produced sufficient documents in support of his contentions, the Opposite party by choosing not participate in the proceedings has failed to dispute the allegations against him. Hence, it must be deemed that the Complainant has proved his allegations. Therefore, we answer the point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following order. ORDER 1. Complaint is allowed. 2. The Opposite party is directed to issue the necessary NOC to the complainant and return the original documents of the vehicle with the hypothecation duly cancelled in the registration certificate within one month from the date of this order. If the Opposite party fails to comply with this order he shall be liable to pay the Complainant damages at Rs.100/- per day thereafter, until the date of Compliance. 3. The Opposite party is directed to pay the Complainant damages of Rs.2,000/- for deficiency in service. 4. The Opposite party is directed to pay the Complainant cost of Rs.500/-. 5. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him/her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 31st October 2006) (M.G.Hiremath) (G.V.Balasubramanya) President Member