SRINIVASA AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED vs CH.SURYA RAO

HEARD the learned Counsel for the appellant Mr. Balkishan Panwar.

AFTER carefully going through the order of the East Godavari District Forum under appeal and the material papers filed alongwith it, we are satisfied that this is a case which discloses clear deficiency in service on the part of the appellant and the second respondent. This appeal has been preferred by the second opposite party in CD No. 63/1999 questioning the order of the District Forum therein dated 9.9.1998. The complainant and the first opposite party in the C.D. are the first and second respondents in the appeal. For the purpose of appreciating the issues involved, suffice it to state that the first respondent/complainant purchased a motor cycle under the hire purchase agreement entered into with the second respondent through the appellant who admittedly is the "Scheme Manager", as the learned Counsel for the appellant puts it. The first respondent was paying the various instalments for some time on due dates and then later in lumpsum amounts by October, 1998. When he was in a position to clear all the dues and approached the appellant, he was told that a sum of Rs. 15,500/- was due towards 11 monthly instalments. The first respondent/complainant paid the entire sum of Rs. 15,500/- on 9.9.1998. He was assured by the second respondent that he cleared all his dues. However the second respondent/first opposite party sent a letter to the first respondent stating that still a balance of Rs. 3,004/- was due. The correspondence filed before the District Forum in the C.D. discloses that actually only a sum of Rs. 1,381/- was the balance amount due from the first respondent under the hire purchase agreement including all penal interest payments etc. By letter dated 17.10.1998 the appellant informed the second respondent that only a sum of Rs. 1,381/- was due from the first respondent and requested the second respondent to verify and clarify the position to the first respondent/complainant with a copy to them. On 25.11.1998 once again the appellant wrote to the second respondent as follows : "Please find the captioned DDs sent to you as an amount of penal interest recovered from the hirers in case of the above Proposals 722 and 487. Regarding the third case please adjust the amount in respect of Proposal No. 746 as per your letter dated 3rd November, 1998. As an amount of Rs. 1,623/- has already been received vide PIS No. 314382 a copy of which is enclosed the balance of the amount is being arranged as a final payment in respect of the above proposal."

The first respondent also addressed a letter dated 16.12.1998 to the second respondent stating as follows : "I have approached the Scheme Manager, Messrs. Srinivasa Automobile Pvt. Ltd., Kakinada about the termination of the H.P. document of my Kawasaki-4s Motor cycle. Then he told me to pay the amount of Rs. 1,381/- to terminate the Higher Purchase document. Hence the amount of Rs. 1,381/- is already paid by me at this office in the month of November, 1998. But I have not yet received any information about the termination of the higher purchase document. So, I request you to intimate as early as possible as I am anxiously waiting for the same. I look forward for your kind early reply."

Inspite of that, there was no proper response from the second respondent and the appellant did not require the second respondent to take immediate action inspite of the fact that all the amounts due and payable were paid by the first respondent/complainant by November, 1998 itself which was in fact intimated by the appellant to the second respondent by letter dated 25.11.1998 already referred to. After addressing letter dated 16.12.1998 referred to above and waiting for about two months the first respondent/complainant approached the East Godavari District Forum by way of the present complaint in February, 1999. It was only thereafter the appellant returned the hypothecation papers in April, 1999, after received notice dated 31.3.1999 in CD No. 63/1999 from the District Forum. In the version/counter by way of a letter dated 19.4.1999 submitted by the appellant before the District Forum, the appellant stated, inter alia, as follows : "We have been advised that an amount of Rs. 1,381/- has to be collected from the hirer to terminate the contract and accordingly we have collected the amount and the remittance handed over by the hirer has been sent to the financier for sending the clearance certificate. In the meanwhile, in December, 1998, the hirer has addressed a letter to the financier for sending the clearance certificate and as an information is needed from us to send the clearance certificate they have referred the matter to us and the particulars called for have been furnished in the month of January, 1999 alongwith other details. After verifying their record and satisfying that the amount in full has been received by them for giving a clearance, on 26th March, 1999 the clearance certificate alongwith the termination papers have been sent to us. The fact has been informed in person to the customer and we have also informed in writing on 15th April, 1999 to collect the papers from us. But on 31st March, 1999 the first and the second respondents in the CD in question have been served with the notice with an instruction to appear in person or to file a reply on or before 30th April, 1999."

THE above narration clearly discloses that the second respondent and the appellant were deficient in service in delaying the returning of papers to the first respondent/complainant by nearly six months. THE first respondent/complainant was ready to pay the entire amount in October, 1998 itself and it was on the instructions and assurance given by the appellant that he paid Rs. 15,500/- towards the balance amount due and payable by him under the hire purchase agreement. If the first respondent/complainant was informed that a further sum of Rs. 1,381/- was due and payable by him, he would have paid it immediately. When a consumer in the position of the first respondent/complainant pays all the amounts due, the hire purchase agreement holder should be in a position to return all the papers to the consumer without forcing the consumer to visit him again and again, address letter after letter, and even approach the District Forum. It is most unfortunate that a Company like the second respondent has made the consumer wait for nearly six months to get back the papers, and that too after a great deal of correspondence and delay. As we were tempted to take the view that the sum of Rs. 5,000/- awarded by the District Forum as damages was slightly on the high and were prepared to reduce the said amount and informed the learned Counsel for the appellant that we would be reducing the amount after notice to the respondents if the appellant was willing to pay costs of Rs. 500/- of this appeal to the first respondent/complainant and also subject to the entire amount being deposited before this Commission including costs of Rs. 500/-, the learned Counsel demurred and stated that he would have to obtain instructions from his client. Under the circumstances we are not inclined to unnecessarily delay the matter by admitting it for some petty marginal reduction of the compensation awarded by giving notice to the respondents and then hearing them. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed.