Kerala

Malappuram

CC/09/189

Mr.KP ABDULRAZAK, S/O. KUTYALI - Complainant(s)

Versus

BRANCH MANAGER, TATA MOTOR FINANCE LTD - Opp.Party(s)

15 Jan 2010

ORDER


DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUMCIVIL STATION
CONSUMER CASE NO. 09 of 189
1. Mr.KP ABDULRAZAK, S/O. KUTYALIKP HOUSE, KUNNATH PARAMBA, POST MELANGADI, KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAMMALAPPURAMKerala ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. BRANCH MANAGER, TATA MOTOR FINANCE LTD15- 14T, GROUND FLOOR, TARIF BUILDING, CALICUT ROAD MANJERI.MALAPPURAMKerala ...........Respondent(s)


For the Appellant :
For the Respondent :

Dated : 15 Jan 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

 

By Smt. C. S. Sulekha Beevi, President,


 


 

1. Complainant is aggrieved by the non-disbursement of loan amount by opposite party even after making endorsement in the Registration Certificate of the vehicle to the effect that vehicle is hypothecated to opposite party.

     

2. The complainant who is the Registration Certificate owner of the stage carriage with Reg.No.KL-11 Q 6068 approached opposite party for financial assistance of Rs.3,50,000/- by hypothecating the said vehicle. Opposite party sanctioned the loan and complainant issued 20 blank cheque leaves which were signed and also signed blank white papers and stamp papers. He also executed the loan agreement. Thereafter opposite party issued the necessary papers and forms to be presented before Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram to effect the endorsement of hypothecation on the Registration Certificate. This was also done. Complainant produced the Registration Certificate and connected papers before opposite party to avail the finance. But to the surprise of complainant opposite party refused to disburse the amount. Complainant issued a lawyer notice to opposite party on 25-4-2009 requesting to grant the finance of Rs.3,50,000/- . Though opposite party received the notice on 27-4-2009 there was no response from opposite party. Complainant alleges that non-disbursement of the loan after effecting the endorsement in the Registration Certificate amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Hence this complaint.

     

3. Notice was issued to opposite party from this Forum. It was served to opposite party on 11-8-2009 as is seen from the acknowledgement card returned to this Forum. This card also bears the official seal of opposite party office. It is crystal clear that opposite party has received the notice. Opposite party remained absent and no version was filed. Opposite party was set exparte on 07-9-2009. Complainant filed affidavit on 17-12-2009, reiterating the contentions in the affidavit. Ext.A1 to A6 were marked on the side of complainant. There is no contra evidence. It is seen from Ext.A2 Registration Certificate that the vehicle is hypothecated to opposite party. The address contained in the endorsement of finance as seen in Ext.A3 is exactly the same address of opposite party as shown in the complaint. This proves that the vehicle was hypothecated to opposite party and endorsement affected from 16-2-2009. The non-disbursement of the loan after complying such procedures is definitely deficiency in service. We find opposite party deficient in service. In the complaint the claim put forward was to direct opposite party to grant the loan of Rs.3,50,000/-. But in the affidavit it is sworn by the complainant that he does not require the loan any more. He claims for compensation of Rs.25,000/- with interest @ 12% and cost of Rs.10,000/-. This claim, in our view, is on the higher side. It can be assumed that the complainant would have undergone much hardships and mental tension due to non-disbursement of the loan even after complying all the formalities. We consider that damages of Rs.8,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum together with cost of Rs.1,000/- would meet the ends of justice.

     

4. In the result we allow the complaint and order that opposite party shall pay Rs.8,000/-(Rupees Eight thousand only) as damages, along with interest @ 6% per annum from 16-2-2009 till payment together with costs of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

     

    Dated this 15th day of January, 2010.


 


 


 

Sd/-

C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT


 


 

Sd/-

MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-

MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER


 


 


 


 


 


 

APPENDIX


 


 

Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to A6

Ext.A1 : Photo copy of the Registration particulars.

Ext.A2 : Photo copy of the Registration Certificate in respect of vehicle No.KL11-A 6068

Ext.A3 : Photo copy of the registered post with A/D lawyer notice dated. 20-4-2009

issued by complainant’s counsel to opposite party.

Ext.A4 : Postal receipt.

Ext.A5 : Postal acknowledgement card received from opposite party to complainant’s counsel.

Ext.A6 : Attested True copy of original Registration Certificate.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Nil


 


 


 

Sd/-

C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT


 


 

Sd/-

MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-

MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER


 


 


 


 


 


 


HONABLE MR. MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, MemberHONABLE MRS. C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENTHONABLE MS. E. AYISHAKUTTY, Member