D o f : 05-07-2011
D o o : 29-02-2012
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC. 161/2011
Dated this, the 29th day of February 2012
PRESENT
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER
SMT.K.G.BEENA : MEMBER
Muralidharan, } Complainant
S/o.Kannan,
Madivayal,
Pilicode.
(In Person)
Branch Manager, } Opposite party
Anupam Finlease (India) Ltd,
Kanhangad Branch, Kasaragod.Dt.
O R D E R
SMT.P.RAMADEVI,MEMBER
This complaint is again came up for consideration before this Forum in view of the direction of the Hon’ble State Commission in its order in Appeal No.832/2011 dt.26/12/2011. As per the above order the Hon’ble State Commission set aside the order in CC 161/11 dt.27/8/11, on condition that the appellant/opposite party pay a sum of ` 5000/- towards the cost to the complainant and deposit the same which can be withdrawn by the complainant. On payment of cost the Forum will permit the opposite parties to contest the matters and directed the Forum to issue notice to the complainant. . The Hon’ble State Commission posted the case on 24/1/2012.
As per the above order complaint is again taken up on 24/1/2012 on that day both parties were absent and opposite party has not complied the directions issued the appellant court. On 24/1/2012 notice was ordered to complainant. On the next posting date complainant was present. No representation for opposite parties. Opposite party neither turned up nor complied the directions of the Hon’ble State Commission. Hence name of opposite party called absent and set exparte. Complainant adduced evidence and Ext.A4 document marked. The case of the complaint in brief is that:
The complainant availed a hire purchase loan of ` 1,00,000/-from opposite party and entered into hypothecation agreement with them. As per the hypothecation agreement the complainant has to pay a monthly instalment of ` 3800/-for 42 months. On 27-10-2006 onwards the complainant was making the payment of instalments. He also paid the defaulted instlments with penal interest whenever there was delay. On the date of hypothecation agreement itself the opposite party retained the RC book of the vehicle with them and also obtained two signed blank cheques of the complainant. The complainant faced difficulties to run the vehicle due to the non-possession of the RC. Three occasions the police warned him. After that he did not run the vehicle. The complainant approached the opposite party many times to get back his original RC. But the opposite party refused to give back the RC. The complainant had remitted 40 instalments. Two instalments are remaining. Hence the complainant had sent a registered lawyer notice to opposite party asking to return his RC accepting the remaining instalments. But the opposite party had sent a false reply to the notice and has not complied the demands made in the notice. Hence this complaint for necessary relief.
2. After admitting the complaint on file this Forum had sent notice to the opposite party. The opposite party duly served the notice and when the case was posted for the appearance and version of opposite party, the opposite party was absent and hence he was set exparte.
3. The complainant examined as PW1 and Exts A1 to A3 marked.
4. After considering the facts of the case the following issues raised for consideration.
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
2. If so, what is the order as to relief and cost?
5. The complainant’s specific case is that out of 42 monthly instalments of loan he had paid 40 instalments. To prove that aspect he has produced Exts A1 and A2 series. Ext.A1is the payment chart issued by the opposite party showing 42 monthly instalments and Ext.A2 series are the receipts issued by opposite party for the above payments. In Ext.A1 the opposite party made the entries of payment and corresponding to each entry the opposite party issued receipts to the complainant. Ext.A1 shows the complainant had paid 40 instalments and Ext.A2 are the 40 receipts for the payment of above 40 instalments. On perusal Exts A1 and Ext.A2 series it is clear that the complainant had remitted a major part of the loan amount. Ext.A3 shows that to obtain the RC he had approached the opposite party. The complainant admits that he has to pay two instalments to the opposite party. In Ext.A3 also the opposite party has no case that opposite party is not in custody of the RC. The financier is not entitled to retain the RC with him. Hence the retaining of RC is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Moreover, two cheques belongs to the complainant are in the custody of the opposite party.
6. The complainant deposed that due to the absence of the original RC he can not run the vehicle, hence the vehicle is kept idle for some months and he lost his income for the last some months. No contra evidence is before the Forum.
7. Therefore the complaint was allowed and the complainant was directed to pay 7613/- the outstanding amount due 12% interest from 29-03-2010 till the date of payment to the opposite party and on receipt of the amount the opposite party was directed to hand over the original RC of the vehicle together with NOC for the cancellation of HP endorsement of the vehicle and two signed blank cheques belongs to the complainant and the opposite party is also directed to pay ` 3000/- towards the cost of proceedings. Failing which on application by the complainant with the evidence for the payment of the said amount with interest to the opposite party, necessary directions will be issued to the concerned RTA to issue a duplicate RC of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL. 14/F 4636 after cancelling the HP endorsement favouring the opposite party.
8. On receipt of the order the complainant complied with his part and paid 9000/- to the opposite party and copy of D/D is produced and marked as Ext.A4. But opposite party preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble State Commission. As per the order in appeal the case is remanded for fresh disposal. But the opposite party failed to comply the directions in the appeal order also failed to appear before the Forum. Hence the earlier order will prevail. But after the earlier order the complainant complied with his part. Hence the earlier order is modified.
Hence the complaint is allowed and the opposite party is directed to hand over the original RC of the vehicle together with NOC for the cancellation of HP endorsement of the vehicle and two signed blank cheques belongs to the complainant within 14 days of receipt of copy of the order and the opposite party also directed to pay ` 7000/- towards the cost of the proceedings. Failing which on application by the complainant necessary directions will be issued to the concerned RTA to issue a duplicate RC of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL 14/F 4636 after cancelling the HP endorsement favoring the opposite party..
Exts.
A1. Instalments details (40 Nos)
A2. Series (40) receipts issued by OP.
A3.13-06-2011 reply notice.
A4-Copy of D/D
PW1. Muraleedharan
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
eva
Date of filing : 05-07-2011
Date of order : 27-08-2011
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC. 161/2011
Dated this, the 27th day of August 2011
PRESENT
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER
SMT.K.G.BEENA : MEMBER
Muralidharan, } Complainant
S/o.Kannan,
Madivayal,
Pilicode.
(In Person)
Branch Manager, } Opposite party
Anupam Finlease (India) Ltd,
Kanhangad Branch, Kasaragod.Dt.
O R D E R
SMT.P.RAMADEVI,MEMBER
That the complainant Mr. Muraleedharan filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service against opposite party.
The complainant availed a hire purchase loan of `1,00,000/-from opposite party and entered into hypothecation agreement with them. As per the hypothecation agreement the complainant has to pay a monthly instalment of `3800/-for 42 months. On 27-10-2006 onwards the complainant was making the payment of instalments. He also paid the defaulted instlments with penal interest whenever there was delay. On the date of hypothecation agreement itself the opposite party retained the RC book of the vehicle with them and also obtained two signed blank cheques of the complainant. The complainant faced difficulties to run the vehicle due to the non-possession of the RC. Three occasions the police warned him. After that he did not run the vehicle. The complainant approached the opposite party many times to get back his original RC. But the opposite party refused to give back the RC. The complainant had remitted 40 instalments. Two instalments are remaining. Hence the complainant had sent a registered lawyer notice to opposite party asking to return his RC accepting the remaining instalments. But the opposite party had sent a false reply to the notice and has not complied the demands made in the notice. Hence this complaint for necessary relief.
2. After admitting the complaint on file this Forum had sent notice to the opposite party. The opposite party duly served the notice and when the case was posted for the appearance and version of opposite party, the opposite party was absent and hence he was set exparte.
3. The complainant examined as PW1 and Exts A1 to A3 marked.
4. After considering the facts of the case the following issues raised for consideration.
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
2. If so, what is the order as to relief and cost?
5. The complainant’s specific case is that out of 42 monthly instalments of loan he had paid 40 instalments. To prove that aspect he has produced Exts A1 and A2 series. Ext.A1is the payment chart issued by the opposite party showing 42 monthly instalments and Ext.A2 series are the receipts issued by opposite party for the above payments. In Ext.A1 the opposite party made the entries of payment and corresponding to each entry the opposite party issued receipts to the complainant. Ext.A1 shows the complainant had paid 40 instalments and Ext.A2 are the 40 receipts for the payment of above 40 instalments. On perusal Exts A1 and Ext.A2 series it is clear that the complainant had remitted a major part of the loan amount. Ext.A3 shows that to obtain the RC he had approached the opposite party. The complainant admits that he has to pay two instalments to the opposite party. In Ext.A3 also the opposite party has no case that opposite party is not in custody of the RC. The financier is not entitled to retain the RC with him. Hence the retaining of RC is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Moreover, two cheques belongs to the complainant are in the custody of the opposite party.
6. The complainant deposed that due to the absence of the original RC he can not run the vehicle, hence the vehicle is kept idle for some months and he lost his income for the last some months. No contra evidence is before the Forum.
7. Therefore the complaint is allowed and the complainant is directed to pay 7613/-(being the two remaining instalments `3800+3813) with 12% interest from 29-03-2010 till the date of payment to the opposite party and after receipt of the amount the opposite party is directed to hand over the original RC of the vehicle together with NOC for the cancellation of HP endorsement of the vehicle and two signed blank cheques belongs to the complainant and the opposite party is also directed to pay `3000/- towards the cost of proceedings. Failing which on application by the complainant with the evidence for the payment of the said amount with interest to the opposite party, necessary directions will be issued to the concerned RTA to issue a duplicate RC of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL. 14/F 4636 after cancelling the HP endorsement favouring the opposite party.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts.
A1. Instalments details (40 Nos)
A2. Series (40) receipts issued by OP.
A3.13-06-2011 reply notice.
PW1. Muraleedharan
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/
