KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL 558/2010

JUDGMENT DATED: 29.10.2010

PRESENT

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU                   : PRESIDENT

SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR              : MEMBER

1. M/s Mahindra & Mahindra                     : APPELLANT

     Financial Service Ltd.,

     Registered office at gateway  building,

    Appolo Baundar, Mumbai 400001.

2. The General Manager,

     Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Service Ltd.,

     Gandhi junction, Chulliyoodu road,

      Sulthanbatheri.

(represented by its power of attorney)

(By Adv.Poovappally M. Ramachandran Nair)

        Vs.

Ashok Kumar,                                            : RESPONDENT

205A, Akhila nivas Muttil post,

Kalpatta, Wayanad.

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU                   : PRESIDENT

          The appellants are the opposite parties in CC 51/2010 in the file of CDRF, Wayanad.  The appellants/opposite parties are under orders not collect any further amounts towards liability of the vehicle loan agreement and also directed to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- as cost.

          2. The case of the complainant is that he had availed a loan of Rs.2.7 lakhs on the security of his vehicle in July 2004, from the opposite parties.  The loan was to be paid in equal monthly installments of Rs.6230/- within a period of five years.  The complainant paid the loan instalments regularly for 1 ½  years.  As his business collapsed he surrendered his vehicle on 30.9.06 and the opposite party had fixed the market value of the vehicle at Rs.2,69,000/- although the vehicle had a market value of Rs.2,75,000/-.  It was assured that the balance amount would be refunded. Subsequently complainant received the notice intimating  that the vehicle was sold for  Rs.1,25,000/- and sum of Rs.91,262/- is to be further paid by the complainant.  The opposite party also initiated arbitration proceedings outside the State and also filed a criminal complaint.  The complainant has sought for return of the amounts due to him which is estimated  at Rs.1,25,000/- and also compensation of Rs.50,000/-.

          3. The opposite parties had filed version contending that the vehicle was surrendered on 26.3.07.  It is stated that the vehicle was sold on 23.8.07 for Rs.1.25,000/-.  Hence the closing figure of the  complainant’s loan amount  as on 23.8.07 was Rs.2,16,262 and after adjusting the sale proceeds there is a balance of Rs.91,262/-. Towards the above amount complainant issued a cheque for Rs.90,000/- dated 17.1.2008.  The cheque was dishonoured and he has initiated proceedings under Negotiable Instrument Act before the  Judicial First Class Magistrate, Aluva.  The opposite parties have sought for the dismissal of the complaint.

          4. The evidence adduced consisted of the proof affidavits filed by the respective sides and  Exts.A1 to A9 and Exts. B1 to B4.

          5. We find that the opposite parties/appellants have not produced any objective evidence to substantiate their case that the vehicle was surrendered  only on 26.3.07.  The opposite parties could have produced the relevant documents in this regard especially as it is a business establishment cum financial institution.  In the absence of the evidence it is to be taken that the case of the complainant that the vehicle was surrendered  on 30.9.06 is correct.  According to the  opposite parties the vehicle was sold on 23.8.07. Hence there is a delay of 11 months in disposing of the vehicle.  Evidently by the time the resale value of the vehicle would have gone down as it was lying stationed for about one year.  Further the opposite parties have not produced the loan account.  There is no reason for not producing the same.  Only on an examination of the loan account the case set up by the opposite parties can be established.  Evidently the complainant was regularly remitting the instalments for 1 ½  years and somewhat immediately there after he surrendered the vehicle.   As already noted above there is a delay of about one year on the disposing of the vehicle.  In the circumstances we find that  there is no patent illegality in the order of the Forum.  We find that there is no scope for admitting the appeal.

          6. In the result the appeal is dismissed in limine.

          Office will forward the copy of this order to the Forum urgently.

          JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU                   : PRESIDENT

          SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR              : MEMBER

PS