KERALA  STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL  COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL 688/2010

JUDGMENT DATED: 2..5..2011

PRESENT

JUSTICE SRI K.R.UDAYABHANU                   : PRESIDENT

SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR             : MEMBER

The Manager,                                            : APPELLANT

M/s Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd.,

Manjeri Post, Malappuram District

Appellant represented by

its power of attorney holder

Vijayakumari.V.M.

(By Adv.B.Jayasankar)

         Vs.

1. Abdul Kareem, S/o Mohammed          : RESPONDENTS

    Musliayarakath Veedu,

    Chathangottupuram Post,

    Wandoor, Malappuram District.

(By Adv.R.Radhakrishnan Nair)

2. Regional Transport Officer,

     R.T.Office, Civil Station,

     Malappuram District.

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SRI K.R.UDAYABHANU                   : PRESIDENT

          Appellant is the 1^st opposite party/Financier in CC.212/08 in the file of CDRF, Malappuram.  The complaint  stands allowed in part and the 1^st opposite party/Financier is directed to pay an amount of Rs.48594/- to the complainant with interest at 10% from the date of the order of the Forum.

          2. The case of the complainant is that he had availed a loan of Rs.3,81,000/- with finance charges of Rs.1,91,757/- on 20.3.2007 on condition to repay the same in monthly instalments of 40 months.  He paid an amount of Rs.2,28,000/-. It is alleged that the vehicle was seized when the amount of Rs.58000/- was due, in the 1^st week of July 2008.  He approached the opposite party with Rs.70000/- including the overdue interest and finance charges for release of vehicle.  The opposite party did not receive the amount and demanded a huge amount and notice dated 7.4.08 was issued demanding 4,60,938/-.  The details of the accounts were not furnished.  In the reply letter opposite party have contended that the complainant has also availed a personal loan of Rs.92,000/-.  The same is false.  The complainant had filed IA before the Forum to get the sale of the vehicle stopped.  The Forum allowed the application directing the complainant to pay Rs.58,000/-.  Although the complainant was ready to pay the amount the opposite party was not receive the same and sold the vehicle to a 3^rd party.  The complainant has sought for a compensation of Rs.2,28,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- towards deficiency in service.

          3. The opposite party/appellant have contended that finance was provided as mentioned above and the complainant defaulted in repaying the loan amount.  As on 31.8.08 only sum of Rs.1,89,960/- was paid and a sum of Rs.3,54,309.97 was due.  Further the complainant availed a personal loan of Rs.92,000/- and finance charges of Rs.1,07,774.97 was also due towards personal loan.  Altogether the complainant is liable to pay an amount of Rs.4,62,054/- as on 2.09.08.  The rate of interest for the defaulting instalments is  36%.  It is denied the complainant approached the opposite party with Rs.70,000/-.  The vehicle sold in public auction on 25.9.08 for 3,00,000/-.  The same was adjusted to the amounts due .  A sum of Rs.2,76,337/- with future  overdue interest is liable to be paid.

          4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, DWs 1 and 2; Exts.A1 to A6 and Exts.B1 to B4.

          5. The Forum has considered the fact that the complainant has paid 2,02,650/- as per Ext.A4 the hirer ledger details.  As on 31.3.08 the amount altogether to be paid in 42 months was Rs.5,72,757/-.  The last instalment date as per the agreement is 20.8.2010.  The vehicle was in the possession of the opposite party from July 2008.  The Forum has found that the complainant is liable to pay interest till the date of repossession and that would work out to 16 months.  The Forum has deducted the interest due for 16 months from the amount due and found that total interest due would work out to Rs.1,18,701/-.  The opposite parties have altogether received Rs.5,02,650/- including the sale price of the vehicle.  The  opposite parties have obtained an excess amount of Rs.48594/-.  Hence the above amount is ordered to be repaid.

          6. Of course it is contended in the appeal memorandum that PW1 the complainant has admitted that the vehicle was surrendered as against his contention that the vehicle forcibly repossessed.  Further there is no proper evidence with respect to the alleged personal loan availed by the complainant.  Only a computer print out has been produced .  The complainant who deposed  as PW1 has denied  that   complainant    taken personal loan  from the opposite party. In this regard we find  that there is no objective evidence to sustain the case of the opposite parties that  the complainant had availed personal loan of Rs.92000/-.  Further we find that no evidence as to the sale  of the vehicle has been produced.  The interest charged by the financier as per the agreement would workout to 16%, at flat rate.  In the circumstances we find that the order of the Forum directing to return the excess amount received appears just.  All the same the direction to repay the amount with interest at 10% appears excessive. The opposite parties are directed to repay the amount with interest at 7%.  The amounts are to be paid within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant  would be entitled at 12% interest from 2.5.2011 the date of this order.

          7. In the result the appeal is allowed in part as above.    

          Office will forward the LCR to the Forum alongwith the copy of this order.

          JUSTICE  K.R.UDAYABHANU                : PRESIDENT

          S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR                     : MEMBER

Ps.