KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL  NO.267/12

JUDGMENT DATED:30.11.2013

 (Against the order in CC.261/08 on the file of CDRF, Malappuram, dtd: 31.01.2012)

PRESENT : 

JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATHALI                        :  PRESIDENT

SHRI. V.V JOSE                                                                   : MEMBER

The Branch Manager,

Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd.,

Teekey Tower, 1153/V, II floor,                                                   : APPELLANT

New Old Bus Stand, Nilambur Road,

Manjeri, Malappuram,

PIN-676 121.

(By Adv: M/s Pramod Chandran & C.S. Rajmohan)

            Vs.

Aboobacker N, S/o Ithalu Haji N,

Neerulppan House,

Edavanna Post, Malappuram Dist,                                            : RESPONDENT

PIN – 676 541.

(By Adv: Sri. T.L. Sreeram)

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI.P.Q. BARKATBH ALI: PRESIDENT

This is an appeal filed by the opposite party in CC.261/08 on the file of CDRF, Malappuram under section15 of the Consumer Protection Act challenging the order of the Forum  dated, January 31, 2012.

2.      The case pf the respondent/complainant as testified by him as PW1 and as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this:-

Complainant availed a loan of Rs.75,000/- from the opposite party for purchasing a Mahindra Nisan Goods Vehicle bearing registration No.KL-10-D-9421 on June 11, 2008.  The agreement was to repay the loan amount in 48 monthly instalments starting from June 11, 2008 on May 15, 2012.  The vehicle was purchased by the complainant to earn his livelihood. At the time of availing loan complainant was forced to sign some blank papers printed forms and file sign blank cheque leaves of Manjeri branch of Canara Bank.  He remitted 3 instalments and thereafter he defaulted.  On November 24, 2008 at 11.30 pm opposite party seized the vehicle from the house of the complainant.  Therefore complainant filed the complaint alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and directing the opposite party to return the vehicle and to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- and a cost of Rs.2500/-.  Subsequently as opposite party has seized the vehicle he amended the complaint and prayed for a direction that he is not liable to pay any amount towards the loan availed of and also for restraining the opposite party from misusing the blank cheque leaves and papers entrusted to him by the complainant.  He also prayed for the refund Rs.8772/- remitted by him towards the loan amount and a compensation of Rs.25,000/- and a cost of Rs.2500/-.

3.      The opposite party, M/s Sreeram Transport Finance Company Limited, Malappuram represented by its Branch Manager filed a version before the Forum contending thus:-  It is true that complainant availed a loan of Rs.75,000/- from the opposite party and purchased the vehicle bearing registration No.KL-10-D/9421 on June 11, 2008 and that the loan amount has to be repaid in 48 monthly instalments.  Complainant paid only 3 instalments ie Rs.8772/- and thereafter he defaulted.  Therefore the opposite party repossessed the vehicle.  The complainant had to pay Rs.1,60,970/-.  That being so the complaint has to be dismissed.

4.      Complainant was examined as PW1 and he produced Exts.A1 to A5.  DWs 1 to 5 were examined and Exts.B1 and B2 were marked on the side of the opposite party. The report of the Commissioner was marked as Ext.C1.  On an appreciation of evidence the Forum found that there is clear deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and ordered that opposite party is not entitled to recover any amount from the complainant towards the loan availed of by the complainant and also directed to pay a compensation of Rs.15,000/- and a cost of Rs.2000/-.  Opposite party is also restrained from misusing the blank cheque leaves and papers which were given by the complainant at the time of availing the loan.  The opposite party has come up in appeal challenging the said order of the Forum.

5.      The following points arise for consideration?

1.                   Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?

2.                   Whether the impugned order of the Forum can be sustained?

Complainant availed a loan of Rs.75,000/- from the opposite party and purchased a Mahindra Nisan vehicle bearing registration No.KL-10-D/9421.  The loan has to be repaid in 48 monthly  instalments starting from June 11, 2008 to May 15, 2012.  Complainant remitted only 3 instalments thereafter he defaulted.  On November 24, 2008 at 11.30 pm the opposite party seized the vehicle from the house of the complainant.  All the above facts are admitted and also proved by the evidence adduced by the complainant. 

6.      In I.A.525/08 on 28.11.2008 the Forum has directed the opposite party to release the vehicle to the complainant on paying Rs.7000/-.  The opposite party refused to receive the amount on the ground that Rs.11,784/- is due to him and also that he apprehended that complainant will dismantled the vehicle once released to him.  This order was confirmed by this Commission.  Subsequently when the complainant went to take delivery of the vehicle it was not in a roadworthy condition.  Therefore an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to inspect the vehicle with the help of an expert commissioner.  Ext.C1 and C2 are those reports wherein the commissioners DW1 and DW2 have reported that it will cost Rs.25,000/- to make the vehicle in a roadworthy condition.

  At the instance of the complainant the complaint was amended to the effect that as the vehicle was in possession of the opposite party complainant is not liable to pay any amount towards the loan.  Forum has granted that prayer and also granted compensation of Rs.15000/- and cost of Rs.2000/-.  For several reasons we are inclined to confirm the above finding of the Forum.  In the agreement Ext.B2 the asset value of the vehicle was shows as Rs.75,000/-.   Admittedly the loan sanctioned was Rs.75,000/-.  DW1 is the Manager of the opposite party company.  DW2 is the Advocate Commissioner.  DW3 is the expert commissioner.  DW4 is the credit and sales executive of opposite party company.  DW4 testified that only 70% of the value of the vehicle will be granted as loan.  It is clear from the above that the value of the vehicle will be more than Rs.75,000/-.  Therefore the Forum is perfectly justified in ordering that the opposite party shall not recover any amount from the complainant towards the loan.

7.      Forum has also directed to pay a compensation of Rs.15,000/- and cost of Rs.2000/- and also directed the opposite party not to misuse the blank singed cheque leaves and blank signed papers given by the complainant to the opposite party.  We find no reason to interfere with the said finding of the Forum.

In the result we find no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with a cost of Rs.5000/-.

JUSTICE P.Q. BARKATHALI:  PRESIDENT

V.V JOSE  : MEMBER

VL.