U.G. SAMPATH vs SHRIRAM INVESTMENTS LTD.

THIS is a complaint under Section 17 read with Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

THE Complainant has entered into a hire purchase agreement with the Opposite Party on 25.4.89 for the purchase of a passenger bus bearing registration No. TNX. 2774. THE amount advanced by the Opposite Party was Rs. 1,20,000/- and with interest the amount totalled to Rs. 1,70,800/- payable in monthly installments. THE Complainant claims to have paid Rs. 99,49750 leaving a balance of Rs. 71,302.50 only. It is alleged by the Complainant that the Opposite Party without prior intimation seized the vehicle in October, 1990 for alleged non-payment of arrears of the hire purchase installments. THE Complainant was called upon by letter dated 11.10.90 to settle the account within 7 days. THE Complainant took a demand draft drawn on Indian Bank, Nallambakkam for Rs. 28,400/-. But the Opposite Party refused to receive the above D.D. By letter dated 6.11.90 the Opposite Party informed the Complainant that they had no option but to sell the vehicle and adjust the proceeds towards the Complainant''s bill. THE Opposite Party did not give any further information about the sale of the vehicle nor was any statement of account given. THE Opposite Party has received a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- by the sale of the vehicle while the Complainant was liable to pay only Rs. 59,402.50. THEre was deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party and the claim is for refund of the excess amount of Rs. 1,05,200/- refund of insurance amount of Rs. 10,000/-, compensation for loss of income at Rs. 90,000/- refund of seizing expenses of Rs. 8,600/- and refund of excess motor vehicle tax of Rs. 10,000/- in all Rs. 2,23,800/-. The claim is resisted by the Opposite Party. The hire purchase agreement dated 25.4.89 is admitted. The amount is repayable in 24 monthly installments. The first installment was Rs.7,500/- and the remaining 23 installments was Rs. 7,100/- each. It is denied that the Complainant had paid Rs. 99,497.50. The cheque dated 30.6.90 was dishonored, and the actual payment made by the Complainant was only Rs. 92,397/-. It is pointed out by the Opposite Party that the vehicle had been seized twice before for non-payment of the hire purchase installment and returned to the Complainant with his undertaking that he would pay the subsequent installments regularly. But he again failed and the vehicle was seized in October, 1990. After ascertaining the market value, the vehicle was sold for Rs. 71,500/- on 7.12.89. The Opposite Party received a sum of Rs. 4,242/- towards the cancellation of the policy of insurance and the same was appropriated towards the Complainant''s due. As on 7.12.90 the Complainant''s due was Rs. 78,231.50 and deducting a sum of Rs. 75,742/-. The Complainant had to pay a further sum of Rs. 2,489.50 to the Opposite Party. In fact, the Complainant requested the Opposite Party to write off the balance. It is denied that the Opposite Party collected a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from the Complainant towards insurance deposit. It is included in the monthly installment. It is admitted that the Complainant sent a D.D. and the Opposite Party refused to receive the same, as the account was not settled in full. Though the vehicle had been insured for Rs. 1,50,000/- it''s was worth in the market was much less. After the sale of the vehicle, the Complainant approached the Opposite Party for No Objection Certificate to enable him to obtain a new bus to be run on his original route permitted and the Opposite Party gave No Objection Certificate. There was, therefore, no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.

Exhs. A-1 to A-25 and B-1 to B-13 are marked by consent. Proof affidavits are filed. No oral evidence has been let in.

THE point for consideration is whether there has been any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party and to what relief, if any, is the Complainant entitled. Point : It is admitted on both hands that the Complainant has entered into hire purchase agreement with the Opposite Party for the purchase of a passenger bus bearing registration No. TNX 2774 and a total sum of Rs. 1,70,800/- payable under the agreement in 24 monthly installments, the first installment being Rs. 7,500/- and the other installments being Rs. 7,100/-. According to the Complainant, he has paid Rs. 99,497.50 towards the above Hire Purchase agreement. The Opposite Party would contend that the cheque dated 30.6.90 was dishonored and hence the actual amount paid by the Complainant was only Rs. 92,397/-. Exh. B-2 shows that the cheque has been dishonored. It is, therefore, clear that the total sum paid by the Complainant towards this Hire Purchase agreement is only Rs. 92,397/- as claimed by the Opposite Party. The vehicle has been seized on October, 1990 for non-payment of the installments. As a matter of fact it had been seized twice one earlier occasions and has been returned to the Complainant with his undertaking that he would pay the subsequent monthly installments regularly as is seen from Exh. B-4 affidavit of the Complainant. The final seizure was in October, 90. The allegation of the Complainant that the vehicle was seized without prior notice has no substance, in the light of Exh. B-6 letter written by the Complainant to the Opposite Party. The Complainant has stated therein that the Opposite Party has exercised its option to seize the vehicle as he had not conformed to the terms of the hire purchase agreement and paid the monthly installments in time. In the said letter the Complainant has also authorised the Opposite Party to sell the vehicle in as is where is condition and adjust the sale proceeds towards his account. Again in Exh. B-8 affidavit the Complainant has stated that he has authorised the Opposite Party to sell the vehicle as he had failed to pay the installments regularly. Consequently, the Opposite Party has sold the vehicle at Rs. 71,500/- on 7.12.90, after getting quotation under Exh. B-9, Exh. B-10, and Exh. B-ll. We are, therefore, unable to find any deficiency in service in the seizure and sale of the vehicle by the Opposite Party for the non-payment of the installments.

ACCORDING to the Opposite Party as on 7.12.90 the amount due to it from the Opposite Party was Rs. 78,231.50. The vehicle has sold for Rs. 71,500/-, a sum of Rs. 4,242/- has been received by the Opposite Party from the insurer on the cancellation of the policy. The total thus secured by the Opposite Party comes to Rs. 75,742/-. There is still a balance of Rs. 2,489.50 due from the Complainant to the Opposite Party. The claim of the Complainant that is entitled to the sum of Rs. 1,05,200/- from the Opposite Party is fanciful. He is not entitled to this amount or to refund to the insurance money or for compensation or for seizure expenses or for refund of motor tax. The claim is totally unfounded and frivolous. It the result, the complaint fails and is dismissed, but without costs. Complaint dismissed.