By Smt.Padmii Sudheesh, President
The case is that the 1st respondent granted finance facility to complainant for purchasing a Yamaha Crux Motorcycle to the tune of Rs.27,524/- and this amount has to be repaid by 36 instalments starting from 19/7/04 to 19/7/07. The complainant had made payment of Rs.40,600/- through various cheques as per the statement of account issued by IndusInd bank as on 14/12/06. Apart from this the 1st respondent has collected Rs.9,304/- under various receipts. Thus the complainant has actually paid Rs.49,904/-. On 24/1/07 1st respondent seized the vehicle alleging that there are arrears of instalments. In fact the complainant had paid more than the loan amount. This act of respondent is deficiency in service. Hence the complaint.
2. The counter of respondents is that M/s.Ashok Leyland Finance Limited has been amalgamated with M/s.Indus Ind Bank Limited. The complainant has entered into an agreement for purchasing Yamaha Crux Motorcycle. The complainant became chronic defaulter after purchasing the vehicle. As per the true and correct statement of account as on 7/6/07 an amount of Rs.10,462/- is due to these respondents from the complainant. The above said vehicle was repossessed by these respondents on 5/2/07 after giving due notice. The vehicle was sold to another person on 20/3/07. In the said transaction these respondents sustained loss to a tune of Rs.3,545.64. The complainant is not entitled to get relieves. Hence dismiss.
3. Points for consideration are that :
1) Whether there are any deficiency in service committed by respondents ?
2) If so reliefs and costs ?
4. Evidence consists of oral testimonies of PW1 and RW1, Exhibits P1 to P5and Exhibits R1 to R7.
5. Points: The complainant had entered into an agreement with 1st respondent with regard to financing facility for purchasing a Yamaha Crux Motorcycle. The amount was Rs.27,524/- and as per the agreement the amount has to be repaid by 36 instalments. It is the case of complainant that he had paid more amount than required. But the 1st respondent seized the vehicle alleging arrears.
6. In the version filed by respondents they have stated that the complainant was a chronic defaulter and they were forced to seize the vehicle and sold it. According to them still there exists a loss of Rs.3,545.64.
7. The complainant is examined as PW1 and Exhibits P1 to P5 documents are marked. He has deposed that what amount due is not known to him. But he has denied the alleged due of Rs.3,747/-.
8. It is the case of respondents that PW1 was a chronic defaulter and the vehicle was seized and sold to another person. According to them the transaction caused the loss to a tune of Rs.3,545./-. So they would say that this amount is due to them. But there is no evidence to show the sale transaction to a third party. The respondents should prove that the vehicle was sold for such and such price and the balance is Rs.3,545/-. Since this is the main contention of respondents they should prove it beyond doubt. But no documents produced to prove the same. RW1 also did not speak anything about it. So the claim of respondents remained disproved. So they are not entitled to get any amount from the complainant.
9. It is the case of respondents that the complainant has surrendered the vehicle to them by way of Exhibit R7. But during examination RW1 denied the same and stated that the respondents got signature in blank papers. The claim of complainant is to get back the vehicle which was already sold to somebody. There is no evidence adduced by PW1 to show how long he had used the vehicle. As per Exhibit R2 the loan agreement was on 19/7/04. The date of purchase of the vehicle is not seen from any documents. As per the statements initial payment made on 19/7/04. As per Exhibit R3 the complainant has paid Rs.55,576/-. According to complainant he has paid more amount than required still the respondents repossessed the vehicle. The statement would show the payment made by complainant. But at the same time the payments are not regular. Even if this was the situation the repossession of the vehicle without due process of law is illegal and unfair. It is a deficiency in service committed by respondents. In the present situation the complainant is not entitled to get back the said vehicle. But the respondents are bound to pay compensation to complainant.
10. In the result the complaint is partly allowed and the respondents are directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 26th day of November 2012.
