BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD.

FA.No.866/2011 against C.C.No.119/2009 District Forum, Nizamabad

Between

The Branch Manager

M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company

Limited, rep. by Sri Y.Ramakrishnudu

S/o.Sri Y.Narayana aged 30 years,

Occ:Branch Manager R/o.D.No.5-6-573/1B

Pragathinagar, Nizamabad.                                           ..Appellant/

                                                                                   Opp.party

        And

Sri Rathod Babu Rao S/o.Kishan, aged

37 years, Occ:Lorry Driver cum Owner,

R/o.Sainagar, Rd No.3, Nizamabad.                                        Respondent/

                                                                                Complainant  

Counsel for the Appellant               :  Mr.M.V.R.Suresh & Associates

Counsel for the Respondent           : Notice on respondent held sufficient

QUORUM: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT

SMT.M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE MEMBER,

          AND

SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER.

WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER,

TWO THOUSAND TWELVE

Order (Per Smt.M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Member)

***

Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.119/2009 on the file of District

Forum, Nizamabad, opposite party preferred this appeal.

The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant is a driver and owner of lorry No.MP-14-1273 which was financed by the opposite party.  The complainant submitted that the Ashok Leyland  make 2002 lorry was purchased in June, 2006 and he invested Rs.5,00,000/- and the opposite party financed Rs.5,00,000/- which has to be paid in 60 instalments as per Hire purchase agreement.  The complainant submitted that he paid the entire amount along with interest which comes to Rs.6,50,000/- and the personnel of the opposite party received the amounts but for some of the instalments they did not issue receipts.  He submitted that he was paying the loan regularly and paid Rs.6,50,000/- and most of the payments were received by opposite party and they did not pass any receipt on the pretext of issuance of receipt later and at the time of seizure of vehicle also, the opposite party received Rs.80,000/- but did not pass any receipt.  The complainant submitted that though payments were received by opposite party, it adjusted the same towards penal interest, over due charges which were not mentioned in the agreement or informed to the complainant at the time of loan.  The complainant approached the accountant of OP and enquired about the due and he replied that the loan account was rescheduled long back for adjusting the interest and penal charges and refused to issue the account statement. The complainant submitted taking advantage of his illiteracy, the opposite party misused the account and cheated him.  The complainant submitted that he again approached the opposite party company and demanded for clearance but it illegally demanded the complainant to pay further amounts as the earlier amount was adjusted towards penal interest.  The complainant submitted that on 18-12-2009 without issuance of any notice, opposite party seized the lorry and demanded the complainant to pay Rs.5,00,000/-.  It is the case of the complainant that the opposite party misused the signed papers and is not furnishing the account and though the complainant cleared the dues, the opposite party is refusing to issue cl