Y Sreedhar vs Authorised Signatory Kinetic Lease And Finance Ltd

THIS is an appeal preferred by the complainant in C.D. No. 126/1998 aggrieved by the dismissal of his C.D. by the Chittoor District Forum by its order dated 3.11.1999. The respondents are the opposite parties in that C.D. The respondents received notice and the first respondent is represented by its Counsel Mr. P.K. Arjun and we heard him at length.

THIS is a case which typifies the manner in which small consumers are harassed by hire purchase companies and finance companies. The first respondent is Kinetic Lease and Finance Ltd., Pune and the second respondent is the dealer of the first respondent at Tirupathi. The basic facts are not in dispute. The complainant purchased a Luna Super from the second respondent at Tirupathi for Rs. 13,780/ - under Hire Purchase Agreement No. HP96H0002620. He had to pay the amount in 10 equal monthly instalments of Rs. 1,378/ -. Advance post dated cheques were taken from the complainant by the respondents. After the last instalment of October, 1997 was got paid, the complainant approached the second respondent for no objection certificate and also Form 35 in respect of his Luna bearing Regn. No. AP.03/E -541 which he purchased under the hire purchase agreement. However the second respondent did not respond and furnish the papers. Thereafter the complainant was surprised to receive letter dated 6.12.1997 from the first respondent stating as follows : ''We invite your kind attention of the outstanding position in your account, in spite of your hire purchase agreement period has been completed. The net amount payable by you is as follows : Add : Balance of Instalments due = 1378.00 Addl. Finance Charges = 453.00 Bank Charges = 50.00 Total Due Amount = 1881.00 We, therefore, request you to send the balance amount of Rs. 1881.00 immediately by demand draft favouring Kinetic Lease and Finance Limited drawn at Pune, to enable us to release Form 35 and No Objection Certificate to you.'' He got Advocates notice dated 17.2.1998 sent to the first respondent giving details of the payments of the 10 instalments and stating as follows : ''3. My client further states immediate after receipt of the said notice from you, he contacted the Manager, Sri Durga Tractor Works, Mosque Road, Tirupati where your branch is located about the due as alleged in your notice. Your authorised Manager informed him he will get correct information from you and infrom the same to my client for which he has waited till today. Whenever, my client contacted your authorised Manager, Tirupati Branch, he has been postponing to give correct answer to my client on some ground or the other. Again, my client informed the same to the Bank Authorities about his payments towards the cheques withdrawn by you. In pursuance of it also you have collected the total amount of Rs. 13,780/ - towards cost of the said vehicle in full by way of cheques which are mentioned above. In view of it my client need not pay any amount to you and also as alleged in your notice, dated 6.12.1997.

THAT my client further states that from the date of your notice, dated 6.12.1997 my client struggled like anything mentally as well as physically about the said notice. For which, my client reserve his right to take appropriate legal action against you to claim damages in a competent Court.

INSPITE of this reply if you take any legal action against my client it is not binding on him and immediate after receipt of the abovesaid reply you have to sent No Objection Certificate to my client and also release Form -35 within a week from the date of receipt of this reply. Or else he will take appropriate legal action against you in a competent Court.'' 4. Thereafter, by letter dated 3.3.1998, the first respondent replied stating as follows : ''With reference to the above we would like to clarify that as per our records Cheque No. 792891 dated 7.1.1997 amounting to Rs. 1,378.00 was not presented to the Bank by us for clearance. Additional finance charges of Rs. 453/ - and Bank charges of Rs. 50/ - are charged if any instalment is due beyond the stipulated time. You have mentioned in your letter that the said cheque has been cleared on 27.1.1997. In view of the circumstances we request you to send a certificate from your clients Bank or a copy of the Bank Pass Book of your client Mr. Y. Sreedhar showing the relevant clearance duly certified as true by the Bank Manager immediately to enable us to proceed further in this matter. For your reference we are enclosing the statement of account of your client.'' 5. Having waited sufficiently long for a proper response, the complainant approached the Chittoor District Forum by way of the present complaint numbered as C.D. No. 126/1998 on 8.6.1998. Notice therein was received by the first respondent by 20.7.1998. Thereafter the first respondent addressed a letter dated 28.7.1998 to the second respondent enclosing the termination papers of the complainant and asking the second respondent to hand over the same to the hirer. It also sent No Objection Certificate dated 28.7.1998 addressed to the Registering Authority, Tirupathi and No Due Certificate dated 28.7.1998 and Form -35 to the second respondent. It also addressed letter dated 28.7.1998 to the United India Insurance Company stating that ''we have no objection in deleting our name from the lien mentioned in the above policy'' relating to the complainants vehicle. Unfortunately the first respondent did not make its appearance before the District Forum and deposit all these papers before the District Forum expressing its regrets for the mistake committed by it in addressing letter dated 6.12.1997 by which it would have enabled the C.D. to be disposed of immediately and not wait till 3.11.1999. We are unable to appreciate the order of the District Forum dismissing the complaint when deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, is writ large. We have the record of the District Forum before us and we have all the letters referred to by us earlier in the record of the District Forum. It is unfortunate that the District Forum took a mechanical view of the matter, failing to notice what appears in the forefront : after addressing letter dated 6.12.1997 and even after receiving letter dated 17.2.1998 from the complainant, the voltaface effected by the first respondent by sending the relevant documents to the second respondent. Soon after receiving the notice from the District Forum, obviously suddenly it realised that it took indefensible stand earlier in sending those letters of 6.12.1997 and 3.3.1998. The complainant is obviously a person capable of purchasing only a Luna Super; and if such persons are harassed in this manner by Companies like the first respondent, it makes a sorrow spectacle of the manner in which these Companies manage their affairs. It is most unfortunate that even an apology was not expressed by the first respondent before the District Forum by appearing and filing a proper counter/version. In the circumstances the minimum that the first respondent has to do is to pay compensation for the mental harassment and pain caused to the complainant for the delay of nine months in the return of the papers and for addressing letters dated 6.12.1997 and 3.3.1998. The amount involved was Rs. 13,780/ -. We asked the learned Counsel to state how much compensation would be reasonable. He suggested that Rs. 1,000/ - would be proper. Though we are of the view that is on the low side, we allow that amount as compensation. In the result, the first respondent is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 1,000/ - to the complainant within six weeks from today i.e., by 17.4.2000. The appeal is accordingly allowed with costs of Rs. 500/ - which shall also be paid by 17.4.2000. Appeal allowed with costs. -