Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/26/2018

M.Saraswathi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Authorized Singnatory M.M.Finance Manish ostwal - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.M.Arun Samuvel

20 Sep 2022

ORDER

Complaint presented on : 12.01.2018

Date of Disposal                :  20.09.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

CHENNAI(NORTH)

2^nd  Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-600 003.

 

PRESENT :  THIRU G. VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.,                                       : PRESIDENT

                       TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN, M.E.                         : MEMBER-I

                       THIRU V. RAMAMURTHY, B.A., B.L., PGDLA : MEMBER-II

 

C.C. No. 26/2018

 

DATED THIS DAY TUESDAY THE 20^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022

 

M.Saraswathi,

No.7, Sadasivam nagar,

1^st cross street,

Madavakkam,

Chennai-600 073                                                           ….  Complainant

 

…Vs…

 

Authorized Signatory,

M.M.Finance,

MANISH OSTWAL,

No.155, Sydenhams Road,

Periamet,

Chennai-600 003.                                                           …..Opposite party

                                     

Counsel for Complainant                   : M/s.Arun Samuel and 3 others

 

Counsel for  opposite party                  : Ex-parte

 

 

 

 

 

ORDER

THIRU G. VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.,       : PRESIDENT

          This complaint is filed by the complainant against Opposite parties under section 12 of Consumer protection Act 1986 prays to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.2,01,100/- collected by way of excess interest and to cancel the endorsement in the R.C. book through the RTO and to issue N.O.C certificate and to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards deficiency of service and unfair trade practice thereby causing mental agony and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards cost.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF :

The complainant submitted that she purchased a Mahindara Maxi cab 30. Bearing registration No. TN 20 AB 0096 in  the year 2003 for her livelihood under self-employment.  The complainant purchased the vehicle from Ashok Leyland for a sum of R.3,50,000 insured with Reliance General Insurance company. The complainant submitted that she obtained a loan for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from the opposite party on 10.01.2011. In pursuance of the loan the vehicle was hypothecated with the opposite party herein for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-  and the loan was to be repaid 30 months installments at the rate of Rs.7750/- for first 15 months  and Rs.6500/- for the rest 15 months totaling to Rs.2,16,750/-.  The complainant promptly paid the monthly installments without delay. Even though the payment of principal and interest amount regularly paid to the opposite party, he used to threaten the complainant intermittently and collected huge amount of Rs.10,000/- towards interest out of record.  The same amounts to unjust enrichment which amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. The complainant submitted that at the end of 30 months a sum of Rs.60,000/- was the due to be repaid to the opposite party.  But when the complainant approached the opposite party regarding the payment of due amount of Rs.60,000/- the opposite party immediately gave a book where he had worked out the interest for balance of Rs.60,000/- and claimed that the complainant had to pay a sum of Rs.1,35,000/- is paid, the complainant cannot receive his vehicle registration certificate and his vehicle was seized.  The complainant paid Rs.13,500/- towards interest and paid a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- and thereby completed the installments in 10 months. The opposite party also charged Rs.1,20,000/- as interest.  Subsequently Rs.66,000/- was also paid towards the interest. Totally the complainant paid Rs.2,01,000/- as interest to the opposite party without obtaining any loan excepting the balance due of Rs.60,000/- out of Rs.2,16,750/-.  The complainant further submitted that requested to the opposite party the statement of accounts .  But the opposite party without replying sent the rowdy elements to seize the vehicle the act of the opposite party amounts to unfair trade practice. The complainant submitted that she paid a sum of Rs.1,35,000/- at the rate of Rs.13,500/- for 10 months.  The complainant also paid a sum of Rs.66,000/- out of Rs.1,20,000/- for 3 months.  The complainant met with opposite party in the year 2015 claimed that a  sum of Rs.85,000/- is pending due towards the interest and threatened the complainant with dire consequences.  Further the complainant prays that the opposite party had illegally collected a sum of Rs.2,01,000/-  from the complainant and cancel the endorsement in the R.C. book through the RTO and issue NOC certificate with compensation.

2. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION

1. Whether there is deficiency of service and  unfair trade practice on part of the Opposite parties ?
2. Whether the Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed in the complaint.  If so, to what extent?

The Proof Affidavit was filed by the Complainant as his evidence and the documents were marked as Ex. A1 to A3 and Written argument also filed by Complainant. Opposite party was Set Ex-parte.

3. POINT NO. 1

The complainant purchased Mahindra maxi cab with Reg No. TN 20 AB 0096 in the year 2003 for her livelihood under self employment for a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- she has obtained a loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- from the opposite party on 10.01.2011.  The vehicle was hypothecated with the opposite party. The loan has to be repaid in 30 monthly EMI at Rs.7750/- for 15 months and Rs.6500/- for another 15 months thus totally he has paid Rs.216750/- according to complainant he paid installment without any delay but opposite party collected huge amount toward interest which amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and further contended that after end of 30 months a sum of Rs.60,000/- was due and when he approached the opposite party he has demanded Rs.1,35,000/- under threatened that the complainant will not receive RC book and the vehicle will be seized and hence the complainant has paid Rs.13500/- towards interest every month and further stated that she has repaid Rs.1,35,000/- and she met opposite party in 2015 they demanded Rs.85,000/- and threatened the complainant and therefore the complainant has prayed for a direction to pay Rs.2,01,000/- collected by way of excess interest and also to issue NOC and cancel the hypothecation endorsement and other relieves.

          4. It is found from Ex.A1 that the vehicle purchased by the complainant is a tourist maxi cab which is used for commercial purpose.  Though it is stated in the complaint that the complainant earned her livelihood by using the vehicle under self employment scheme there is no document filed by her to prove the same.  There is no document filed to prove that she knows driving and the vehicle was driven by her to earn her livelihood.  The complainant has not filed any driving license standing in her name.  Hence the complainant failed to prove that the said vehicle was used by her under self employment scheme for her livelihood purpose. 

          5. It is found from Ex.A2 and A3 that the complainant herein has entered into hire purchase agreement with the opposite party on 10.01.2011 and 01.06.2014 but the said agreements were not filed before this commission.  Hence the terms and conditions of the said agreement is not able to be ascertained by this commission. Though it is stated by the complainant that under Ex.A2 he has paid installments at Rs.7750/- for 15 months and Rs.6700/- for another 15 months there is no regular entry regarding the regular repayment during the alleged 30 months period. Further it is found from Ex.A3 the complainant has defaulted to pay last 6 installments and it is found that he is liable to pay Rs.65080/- as per Ex.A3 therefore the complainant having committed default in repaying the amount borrowed has approached this commission with unclean hands by suppressing the material fact and falsely accusing the opposite party by alleging that it has collected exorbitant interest from the complainant and further it is found that the complainant failed to prove that the opposite party has collected Rs.2,01,000/- by way of excess interest from the complainant.  The complainant is not entitled to seek for to cancel the hypothecation endorsement and to issue NOC without repaying the loan amount borrowed from the opposite party hence there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party. The complainant failed to establish that the opposite party collected excessive interest from the complainant and there by committed unfair trade practice and further the complainant failed to prove the alleged threat for seizure of the vehicle for non-payment of the excessive due amount.  Hence it is found that there is unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on part of opposite parties. Point no.1 answered accordingly.

6. POINT NO.2

Based on finding given Point no.1 there is no deficiency of service on part of opposite party and no unfair trade practice carried out by the opposite party. The complainant is not entitled to seek any remedy as against the opposite party and hence the complaint is dismissed. Point No.2 is answered accordingly.

                     

                        In the result the complaint is dismissed .No costs.

 

Dictated by the President to the Steno-Typist taken down, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 20^th  day of September 2022.

 

MEMBER I                           MEMBER II                     PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT

Ex. A1	24.07.2003	Copy of R.C. book
Ex. A2	10.01.2011	Copy of loan book1
Ex. A3	01.06.2014	Copy of loan book 2.

 

MEMBER I                           MEMBER II                     PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

CC.NO.26/2018, DATED:20.09.2022 Order Pronounced,              In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No cost.   MEMBER-I     MEMBER-II      PRESIDENT