DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 29th day of November 2017
Present : Smt.Shiny.P.R. President
: Smt.Suma.K.P. Member Date of filing: 16/10/2015
: Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member
(C.C.No.146/2015)
Noushad,
S/o Muhammed kutty,
Paduvapadam House,
Thrikkadeeri,
Thrikkadeeri (PO),
Ottappalam,
Palakkad - Complainant
(Adv.K.A.A.Sadath)
Vs
1. Branch Manager,
Sreeram Transport Finance Company Limited,
Royal Plasa, Cherpulassery Road, Ottappalam
679 101.
2. Sree RamTansport Co.Ltd,
Regd Officem Mookambika Complex,
3rd Floor, No.4, Lady Desika Road,
Mylapore, Chennai,
600 004. - Opposite parties
3. The Managing Director
Sree RamTansport Co.Ltd,
Regd Officem Mookambika Complex,
3rd Floor, No.4, Lady Desika Road,
Mylapore, Chennai,
600 004
4. The Manager,
Administrative Office,
Sree Ram Transport Co, Ltd, 101/105, 1st Floor,
B Wing, Shiv Chambers, Sector 11, CBD,
Belapore, Navi Mumbai, 400 614.
O R D E R
By Smt.Shiny.P.R. President.
Brief facts of complaint.
On 02.06.2012 the complainant had availed a loan from the opposite party for an amount of Rs.6,55,785/- with interest of 5% per annum for purchasing a second hand Eicher Mini Lorry (2010 model). Complainant submits that for the last two years work was very low and he was unable to ply the lorry properly. So he could not pay the monthly installments properly. However he has paid an amount of Rs.5,14,711/- towards the loan amount. During the month of May 2012 complainant approached the 1st opposite party to close the loan, opposite parties demanded a huge amount towards the loan account. Hence the complainant requested a detailed statement of account from the opposite party but they did not acceded to the request of the complainant and they threatened the complainant by saying that if the excess amount is not repaid, they will fabricate false documents by using the blank signed papers and cheques and they will file false case against the complainant. The complainant further submits that he is ready to pay the amount which is legally bound to pay to the opposite party and the act of the opposite party amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service. Due to the acts of the opposite party complainant suffered a lot of mental agony. Hence the complaint. Complainant prays for an order permitting him to close the loan account by paying the legally due amount towards the loan account and directing the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- for the mental agony and stress.
Complaint was admitted and issued notice to opposite parties. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed their version contending the following:-
Opposite party contended that the complainant availed a loan from the opposite party for purchasing an Eicher 10.80 FBT-T 2010 model bearing registration number KL/10/A£/2653. For this, the complainant entered into a loan cum hypothecation agreement with the opposite party on 02.06.2012. The amount advanced by the opposite party to the complainant was Rs.6,55,785/- and the complainant agreed to pay the same along with interest and financial charges and also default payment charges in case of default in payment of the monthly installments. Thus the total agreed value comes to an amount of Rs.10,06,994/-. The complainant agreed to pay the agreement amount in 48 monthly installments. And as per the loan agreement the complainant is bound to pay delayed payment charges at 3% per month for the defaulted amount in the event of any delay or default in the payment of monthly installments on the due date or insurance premium on the due date. The complainant further availed Rs.21,011/- as loan towards insurance on 30.03.2013 and an agreement was executed for the same also. And further on 28.10.2013 he further availed working capital loan for an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- and an agreement was executed for the same also, and further on 14.02.2014 an amount of Rs.22,755/- was availed for insurance loan and for the same also an agreement was executed and further on 04.03.2015 an amount of Rs.24,326/- was availed by way of loan for insurance for that also the complainant entered into agreement with the opposite party. Thus the complainant is legally bound to pay Rs.10,06,994/- towards the parent loan (Rs.6,55,785/- along with interest) and Rs.1,88,092/- towards the other loan accounts along with interest for the same. The opposite party has never insisted to give any blank cheques, blank papers and any other documents from the complainant nor has received it also. Opposite party further contended that he used to pay the amount as and when he thinks to pay, he never paid the amount within the monthly due date and more over he used to keep arrears of the monthly installment also. And thus because of the irregular payment the complainant is liable to pay the delayed payment charges. Thus as on 18.11.2015 the complainant is liable to pay an amount of Rs.9,80,653/- to the opposite party towards the loan amount. The vehicle is still with the complainant himself and he is using the same also. The relief paid by the complainant is not at all allowable and they are unjustifiable. If the complainant is ready and willing to pay the amount due from him towards the loan account the opposite party is ready to issue the non liability certificate. He has purposefully suppressed the material facts and submitted those which are false and misleading. As per the loan agreement the complainant is bound to pay the above mentioned amount along with interest till this date. Hence the complainant is not at all entitled to get any amount from the opposite party. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. Thus the complaint is to be dismissed with cost.
As per the order in IA 429/16 complainant impeladed the supplemental opposite parties No. 2 to 4. Notices were issued to supplemental opposite parties and after the receipt of notice they entered appearance but no version was filed.
Complainant and opposite party filed their respective chief affidavit. Exts. A1 to A5 marked on the side of complainant. Exts. B1 to B7 marked from the side of opposite party. Complainant filed interrogatories to opposite party and opposite party filed answers to the same.
The following issues that arise for consideration are
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties?
2. If so, what are the reliefs and cost?
Issues 1 & 2
We have perused the documents filed before the Forum. Exts A1 to A3 receipts show that the complainant has paid Rs. 25,000/- on 31/12/2014, Rs. 25,000/- on 26/05/2015 and Rs 25,800/- on 31/08/2015 to the opposite parties towards the loan account. He submitted that he has paid an amount of Rs.5,14,711/- towards the loan amount to the opposite parties. But no other receipts were produced before the Forum to show that he has made the balance payment to the opposite parties.
Opposite party produced Exts. B1 to B7 documents before the Forum to prove their contentions. On perusal of Ext B2 hypothecation agreement it is seen that the complainant and opposite party signed the document on 2/06/2012. Contents of Ext. B2 evident that complainant has availed a loan for an amount of Rs. 6,55,785/- from the opposite party and has agreed to pay EMI of Rs. 21,978/- for the first installment and 47 monthly installments @ Rs.20,958/- per month to the opposite party. It is also mentioned in Ext. B2 that the complainant is bound to pay delayed payment charges at 3% per month for the defaulted amount in the event of any delay or default in the payment of monthly installments on the due date. Opposite party submitted that in addition to the above loan complainant had taken insurance premium loan for an amount of Rs.21,011/- on 30.03.2013, Rs. 22,755/- on 14.02.2014 and Rs. 24,326/- on 04.03.2015 and working capital loan of Rs 1,20,000/- from the opposite parties. These contentions were not denied by the complainant either by filing replication or counter affidavit. These transactions were proved by the opposite party by producing Exts. B3 to B5 agreements in which both parties were signed. At the time of evidence, marking of the above said documents were not objected by the complainant. To disprove these contentions of the opposite party complainant did not adduce any contra evidence before the Forum. .
Opposite party submitted that the complainant was a defaulter in paying EMI towards the loan account. Perusal of Ext B7 account statement clearly shows that complainant was a defaulter in making the payment of EMI. More over complainant has admitted in their compliant that for the last two years work was very low and he was unable to ply the lorry properly and so he could not pay the monthly installments properly. Since the hypothecation agreement is not disputed by the complainant, complainant has the liability to abide by the terms and conditions of the hypothecation agreement. Under the above circumstances we cannot attribute deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. In the result complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 29th day of November 2017.
Sd/-
Shiny.P.R.
President
Sd/-
Suma.K.P.
Member
Sd/-
V.P.Anantha Narayanan
Member
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 - Original loan receipt No.OTTAP1412310018 dated. 31.12.2014
Ext.A2 - Original loan receipt No.OTTAP1505260010 dated. 26.05.2015
Ext.A3 - Original loan receipt No.OTTAP1508310018 dated. 31.08.2015
Ext.A4 - Original lawyer notice dated. 11.09.2015 sent by opposite party
Advocate to the complainant
Ext.A5 - True copy of reply notice dated.25.09.2015 sent by the complainant
through his advocate to opposite party & Postal Receipts
Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite parties
Ext.B1 - Certified copy of Power of attorney
Ext.B2 - Loan cum Hypothecation Agreement
Ext.B3 - Original Loan Agreement
Ext.B4 - Original Loan Agreement
Ext.B5 - Original Loan Agreement
Ext.B6 - Transport of proposal for vehicle insurance and loan processing
dated.04.03.2015 issued by Shriram Transport Finance Company
Limited to the complainant
Ext.B7 - Loan summary details issued by Shriram Transport Finance Company
Limited to the complainant
Cost
Nil
