| ORDER | By Sri. K. Mohammed Ali, President, Facts in brief:- It is the case of the complainant hat he has availed financial facility for purchasing of a two wheeler, Bajaj Pulsar KL/55-H-8276 from the opposite party No.1. The loan amount was Rs.51,500/-. He has remitted ten monthly installments, Rs.2,031/- each. It is further stated that, he had committed default, in repayment of three E.M.I., the opposite party No.1 has illegally seized the vehicle without any Court Order. Thereafter he was called for to attend the Ernakulam Regional Office of the opposite party No.1 and they assured to the complainant that, they are prepared to release the vehicle provided the complainant remit four installments. Later on, opposite party No.1 insisted the complainant to pay the entire balance of EMI., for release of the vehicle. The opposite party No.1 has submitted an elaborate version by which he has denied the averments in the complaint. According to opposite party No.1, the loan amount sanctioned was Rs.73,116/- including financial charges of Rs.21,616/- for 24 months tenure. A loan agreement was allegedly executed between the complainant and the opposite party No.1. The monthly installment to be paid was Rs.2,031/-. The contract period was for 36 months. The complainant was a chronic defaulter in repayment who had paid only to EMI to the opposite party No.1. The vehicle was surrendered by the complainant to the opposite party No.1 and it was not an illegal seizure as alleged. Opposite party No.1 states that, due to the non-payment of the installment in time, the overdue was accumulated. The opposite party No.1 further contends that on 07-02-2013, complainant was in arrears of Rs.22,179/-. If the complainant is ready to pay as on date outstanding dues and further EMI., opposite party is ready to handover back the possession of the vehicle to the complainant. Here, the main points that arises for consideration is as follows:- (i) Whether the opposite party No.1 is deficient in service by withholding the vehicle. (ii) Relief if any.
Point No.(i):-
The complainant has produced the documents which are marked as Ext.A1 to A5 series. His father as Power of Attorney holder was examined as PW1. Ext.A1 is the collection Book of the Bajaj Finance. According to this document, the loan amount is Rs.51,500/- and EMI is Rs.2,031/-. It is seen that the complainant has remitted ten installments. Ext.A5 series are the receipts by which the complainant has remitted the installments. Complainant himself admits that altogether he has remitted only ten installments. Moreover, in the page No.2, the complainant stated that, since he is going abroad on 30-08-2012 his father Sri. Abdulla Koya Hajee is authorised to make all dealing in this regard. In the affidavit dated, 11-12-2012, the complainant claims that, he has paid Rs.26,940/- as the first installment and Rs.2,031/- as EMI. This statement seems to be false. The Power of Attorney holder of the complainant submitted a petition on 07-01-2014, expressing his willingness to pay Rs.35,000/- to the opposite party No.1 as the arrears of the loan if opposite party No.1 is ready to hand over back the vehicle to the complainant. According to the version of the opposite party No.1, there was a mutual understanding on 04-06-2011 as per the loan agreement No.L2WPER01051845. The terms and conditions arrived at between the parties was to remit Rs.73,116/-. The monthly installment to be paid as per loan agreement per month was Rs.2,031/- and the contract period was for 36 months. The opposite party has miserably failed to produce any piece of evidence, including the said agreement and payment chart. Opposite party No.1 has not filed counter affidavit also. Opposite party No.2 has no role in the transaction. What are the interest rate fixed between the parties is also not known. Anyhow, it can be seen that complainant has committed default in repayment of the loan which has resulted the seizure of the vehicle from the custody of the complainant. Since the seizure was effected without any Court Order, the act of opposite party No.1 constitute grave deficiency in service. In the view of the factual position prescribed by the case we consider that to meet the ends of justice the complainant shall pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- to the opposite party No.1 towards the arrears of the loan amount and defaulted interest. The opposite party No.1 shall return the vehicle two wheeler Bajaj PULSAR KL/55/H-8276 to the complainant. In the result, we party allow the complaint and order opposite party No.1 to handover back the possession of the said vehicle to the complainant and the complainant shall pay a sum of Rs.40,000/-(Rupees Forty thousand only) to opposite party No.1, towards the arrears of the loan amount and defaulter interest. The order shall be complied within one month of the date of receipt of the copy of this order. No order to cost and compensation.
Dated this 4th day of February, 2014.
Sd/- K. MOHAMMED ALI, PRESIDENT Sd/- R. K. MADANAVALLY, MEMBER Sd- MINI MATHEW, MEMBER APPENDIX Witness examined on the side of the complainant : PW1 PW1 : Abdulla Koya, Power of Attorney holder of the complainant. Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to A5 Ext.A1 : Ext.A2 : Ext.A3 : Ext.A4 : Ext.A5 : Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Nil Sd/- K. MOHAMMED ALI, PRESIDENT Sd/* R. K. MADANAVALLY, MEMBER Sd/- MINI MATHEW, MEMBER | |
