PANCHAVATI PROJECTS ENGINEER Vs. SERI INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.920/2006 on the file of District Forum-II, Hyderabad, the complainant preferred this appeal.

(2.) The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant purchased proclainer manufactured by M/s.Kirlosker Engineering Company and the opposite party herein provided the financial assistance for an amount of Rs.21,69,280/- in the year 2003 and the opposite party has taken original invoice issued by the manufacturer of the proclainer i.e. Tata Hitachi Ex.100 towards security stating that the same would be returned to the complainant after repayment of the loan amount. The complainant deposited the original invoice with the opposite party as security for repayment. The opposite fixed the instalments for repayment of the loan and the complainant paid the amount to the opposite party and cleared the loan by 21.6.2006. After repayment of the loan even after repeated requests, the opposite party did not return the original invoice which was kept as security. The complainant got issued a legal notice on 22.8.2006 which the opposite party received but did not reply. Hence the complaint seeking direction to the opposite party to return the original invoice of the manufacturing company of the proclainer to the complainant, and also to pay compensation and costs.

(3.) The opposite party filed counter stating that the complainant entered into a Hypothecation Agreement with them on 29.3.2003 and under this agreement the complainant availed finance by way of loan cum hypothecation and both the complainant and opposite party are bound by the terms and conditions and the complainant committed default in payment of the instalments and dues are still pending. As a result of the default on behalf of the complainant, the opposite party is under no obligation to return the original invoice. The opposite party states that the complainant is liable to pay an outstanding amount of Rs.3,85,426.94 + Rs.20,000/- as on 5.2.2007 and hence there is no deficiency in service on their behalf.