Kerala

StateCommission

A/16/367

SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY - Complainant(s)

Versus

ABDUL LATHEEF - Opp.Party(s)

NARAYAN R

29 Jun 2018

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION  VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO. 367/16

 

JUDGMENT DATED:29.06.2018

 

PRESENT : 

SHRI. T.S.P MOOSATH                                             : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SHRI. RANJIT. R                                                                   : MEMBER

 

1. The Branch Manager,

Shriram Transport Finance Company,

Sreepadom Building, Cherootty Road,

Kozhikkode, R/by its Authorised Signatory,

Santhosh P. John.

                                                                                                : APPELLANTS

2. The Branch Manager,

Shriram Transport Fianance Company Ltd.,

1.  

Near LIC Office, Sulthan Bathery-673 592.

R/by its Authorised Signatory,

Santhosh P. John.

 

(By Adv: Sri. Narayan. R)

 

            Vs.

 

1. Abdul Latheef, S/o Beeran,

Neyyan House, Muttil Post,

Vythiri Taluk, Wayanad-673 122.

 

(By Adv: Sri. Vinod Kumar.S)                                         : RESPONDENTS

 

2. The Regional Transport Officer,

Regional Transport Office,

Kalpetta, Wayanadu-683 121.

JUDGMENT 

 

SHRI. RANJIT.R : MEMBER

The appeal has been filed by the opposite parties 1 and 2 against the impugned order dated, 12^th day of April 2016  passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Wayanad, Kalpetta  (for short the District Forum) in CC.289/15.  By this order the district forum partly allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties 1 and 2 not to seize the vehicle and to issue loan clearance certificate to the complainant over the Tipper lorry with Registration No.KL-12-D-4591, on payment of Rs.5000/- towards the penal interest and due instalments,  if any, by the complainant.   The complainant is directed to pay the above amount to the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order.  The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties were directed to issue loan clearance certificate to the complainant on receipt of the above amount within 30 days from the date of payment by the complainant.  If 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties fails to obey the direction given above, 3^rd opposite party is directed to remove the loan endorsement from the RC book of the above vehicle.  The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties can release the amounts deposited by the complainant before the Forum towards loan repayment.  The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.1000/- only as cost and compensation to the complainant for deficiency of service.

2.      The brief facts of the case is that:-  Complainant is the RC owner of the tipper which is registered with 3^rd opposite party and the vehicle who was used for his livelihood.  The agent of the first opposite party promised to give loan with low interest and no hidden charges and also promised for spot collection.  The first opposite party is the staff of 2^nd opposite party and complainant availed a loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from 2^nd opposite party.  First and 2^nd opposite parties collected Rs.30,000/- as loan proceedings charges.  Second opposite party also collected balance signed blank cheque leaves and signed blank papers and stamp papers from the complainant as security.  The title deed of guarantor was also collected by the 2^nd opposite party from the complainant.  The first and second opposite parties demanded the complainant to repay the loan amount with interest in 48 equal monthly instalments of Rs.16,767/- each.  The complainant had repaid Rs.6,18,000/- towards loan, the last date of repayment was on 5.1.2016. Due to financial constrains, the complainant decided to sell the vehicle and accordingly a third party approached the complainant to purchase the vehicle.  Hence the complainant approached the opposite parties 1 and 2 to foreclose the loan and offered to pay the entire amount.  But the opposite party did not accept the loan amount and demanded a total amount of Rs.4,59,711/- from the complainant as the defaulted amount, over due interest etc.  Complainant is not liable to pay such exorbitant amount.  The default is not due to the fault of the complainant.  Hence he filed the complaint praying for getting the NOC from the opposite party.  Opposite parties 1 and 2 filed version, 3^rd opposite party remain exparte.  Opposite parties 1 and 2 denied the collection of Rs.30,000/- towards processing charges.  They contended that the total amount repayable was Rs.8,04,800/- and it is to be repaid in 48 monthly instalments.  There was default of payment of instalments by the complainant and so an amount of Rs.4,72,836/- was due in the account of the complainant and they demanded Rs.4,59,711/- from the complainant.  Since there is arbitration clause in the agreement, the complaint was not maintainable.  Hence they  prayed  for dismissal of the complaint.

3.      Evidence consisted of oral testimony of the complainant as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A4 on the side of the complainant.  There is no oral or documentary evidence on the side of the opposite party.

4.      After considering the pleadings and evidence, the lower Forum passed the impugned order.

5.      Being aggrieved by this order with the district forum, opposite parties 1 and 2 have filed this appeal.

6.      We heard both sides and perused the records.  The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the complainant defaulted payment of instalments due and there was inordinate delay in paying the instalments and hence as per the hypothecation agreement he has to pay penal interest also.  An amount of Rs.4,72,836/- is still due on the account of the complainant.

7.      The admitted fact is that the complainant has approached the 2^nd opposite party for foreclosure of loan amount before the expiry of the last date of the instalment payment.  The opposite party then demanded huge and exorbitant amount of Rs.4,59,711/- towards the penal interest for defaulted instalments.  No document whatsoever is produced by the opposite party to prove their demand Ext.A2, statement of accounts, shows that the complainant was paying periodic monthly instalments without default, and he had paid total sum of Rs.6,18,000/-.  But there occurred some days delay in paying the periodic monthly instalments.  As per Ext.A3 repayment schedule the last date of payment of instalment amount is on 5.1.2016 and total repayable amount was Rs.8,04,800/- as on 5.1.2016.  Complainant has already paid this Rs.6,18,000/-.  The learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that the complainant has deposited a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- before the district forum on the date of complaint ie 29.9.2015 itself.  Complainant has also deposit sum of Rs.67,100/- before the forum on 11.12.2015 and Ext.A4 is the receipt for the same.  Thus the complainant has deposited a total sum of Rs.1,87,100/- before the Forum.  The lower forum has directed the complainant to pay Rs.5000/- towards penal interest.  The Forum below also allowed opposite parties to realise the amounts deposited by the complainant before the Forum towards the loan repayment.  The learned counsel for the respondent has stated that the complainant has paid Rs.5000/- to the opposite parties as directed by the Forum.  These facts are admitted by the learned counsel for the appellant.  From the above statement it is seen that the complainant has thus paid a total sum of Rs.8,10,100/-.  The total repayment amount even as per Ext.A3 chart, as on 5.1.2016 is only Rs.8,04,800/-.  The opposite parties 1 and 2 did not produce any document to show that an amount of Rs.4,59,711/- is due as penal interest in the account of the complainant, till 7.10.2015, the date on which the complainant went for foreclosure of the loan amount as contended by them in the version.  In our opinion the amount already paid by the complainant, will substantially cover the penal interest also.  The learned counsel for the appellant also fairly conceded for the same.  The learned counsel for the respondent brought to our notice that the 3^rd opposite party/2^nd respondent, RTO rejected the application of renewal of permit of the vehicle of the complainant with a registration No.KL-12-D-4591 stating that the application for renewal will be considered only on production of NOC from the opposite parties 1 and 2.  The letter dated 6.3.2007 with No.C/5/6169/2017/W from the RTO is produced before this Commission by the respondent/complainant.  Considering the above facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that it is only just and reasonable to meet the interest of justice, the 2^nd opposite party, be directed to close the loan transaction and issue NOC to the complainant without any delay. 

In the result the appeal is dismissed.  Opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to issue No Objection Certificate to the complainant closing the loan transaction within one month from the date of this order and 3^rd opposite party/2^nd respondent, on getting the NOC is directed to remove the loan endorsement from RC book of the complainant’s vehicle with registration No.KL-12-D-4591.  The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

 

T.S.P MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

RANJIT. R : MEMBER

 

VL.