THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Present:
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member
CC No. 265/2010
Wednesday, the 29th day of December, 2010.
Petitioner : Sony Thomas,
Peedikathundiyil,
Ithithanam P.O
Kottayam.
(By Adv. T.R Sathian)
Vs.
Opposite party : M/s. Sriram Transport Finance
Company Ltd., Reg. Office at 123,
Angappa Naicken Street,
Chennai.
reptd. by its Branch Manager,
Kottayam.
O R D E R
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President
Case of the petitioner filed on 4..10..2010, is as follows:
Petitioner availed a loan from the opposite party, a private finance company, for the purchase of a Tipper Lorry. As per the terms of the loan repayment is to be completed in 30 installments. Petitioner repaid the amount till 15..6..2010. Petitioner approached the opposite party to close the loan transaction. Opposite party issued a statement to the petitioner stating that an arrears of the monthly installments amounting to Rs. 37,170/- and over due charge of Rs. 92,207/-is outstanding . According to the petitioner claim of the opposite party is exorbitant and act of the opposite party amounts to unfair trade practice. So, he prays for a direction to the opposite party to settle the account accepting the actual dues. Petitioner also claims cost and compensation.
Notice was issued to the opposite party but they had not entered appearance or filed any version so the opposite party was set ex-parte.
Points for determinations are:
i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
ii) Relief and costs?
Evidence in this case consists of proof affidavit filed by the petitioner and Ext. A1 document on the side of the petitioner.
-2-
Point No. 1
Since the opposite party was set ex-parte we are constrained to rely on the sworn proof affidavit filed by the petitioner. The statement of accounts alleged to be given by the opposite party is produced said document is marked as Ext. A1. From Ext. A1 it can be seen that there was an arrear of Rs. 37,170/- and over due charge of
Rs. 92,207/- as on 30..6..2010. In our view act of the opposite party in accepting exorbitant over due charges other than the agreed amounts is an unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. We are of the view that ceazing a vehicle forcibly, other than under due process of law, is not legal. So, point No. 1 is found accordingly.
Point No. 2
In view of the finding in point No. 1, petition is allowed. Opposite party is directed to give a detailed account statement with regard to the loan account of the petitioner, to the petitioner. Opposite party is ordered not to collect any amount other than the amount legally entitled to them, as per the hypothecation agreement. Opposite party is also restrained from taking forcible possession of vehicle, bearing No. KL 10 R 3920. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case no cost and compensation is ordered.
Dictated by me, transcribed by the Confidential Assistant, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this 29th day of December, 2010.
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/-
By Order,
Senior Superintendent
Received on / Despatced on
amp/ 4 cs.
