KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 87/2007
DATED: 30.09.2010
PRESENT:-
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
SHRI. S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
APPELLANT
The Managing Director,
Cholamandalam Investment &
Finance Co. Ltd.,
2nd Floor, Ensign Enclave,
Jose Junction,
M.G. Road, Kochi-682001
(Rep. by Adv. Sri.P. Balakrishnan)
Vs
RESPONDENTS
1. Cyril,
Arackal House,
Arthunkal P.O.,
Cherthala South – 688530
2. Lilly Cyril,
Arackal House,
Arthunkal P.O.,
Cherthala South – 688530
(Rep. by Adv. Sri. E.D. Zacharias & S. Rajeev)
JUDGMENT
SHRI. S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
The opposite party in O.P. 203/03 before CDRF, Alappuzha has come up in this appeal calling for the interference of this Commission as to the sustainability of the order passed by the Forum below. By the impugned order dated 17.3.2006, they are under directions to refund a sum of Rs. 45,078.50 and compensation of Rs. 1,000/- with cost of Rs. 700/- to the complainant within 2 months from the date of receipt of the order.
2. The complainants had approached the Forum stating that the second complainant had availed finance arrangements from the opposite party for purchasing a maruthi car and that the amount was to be repaid @ Rs. 8,200/- per month. As she had certain financial difficulties she could not pay the installments in time and the opposite parties took possession of
the vehicle forcibly on 13.12.2002. At that time the first complainant was away at Mumbai. The second complainant had to pay the entire amount on 5.2.2003 for releasing the vehicle. The allegation is that the opposite party had levied exorbitant amount from the complainant in various heads and the complaint was filed for getting back the amount of Rs. 31,105.50 alleged to be levied from the complainants along with another sum of Rs. 19,673/- collected illegally from the complainant.
3 In the version filed by the opposite party it was contented that the complaint was not maintainable before the Alapuzha Forum as no cause of action had arises within the jurisdiction of the Forum and also that the complainant was a defaulter and they had taken the possession of the vehicle which was released on payment of the entire balance amount. It was submitted that the amounts were remitted without any objection and hence no deficiency of service could be attributed against the opposite party and they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with cost.
4. The evidence consisted of the oral testimony of the second complainant as Pw1 and Exts. A1 to A18 on the side of the complainants.
The legal co-ordinator of the opposite party was examined as Rw1 and Ext. B1 document was marked.
5. Heard both sides.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued before us that the Forum below had passed the order without proper appreciation of the contentions and evidence adduced by the opposite party. It is his case that the order is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside on the ground that the complainant had willingly paid the amount for getting back the vehicle. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that the opposite party had collected only the actual amount due as per the terms of the agreement and the Forum below had not considered the hire purchase agreement entered into between the parties in its correct perspective.
7. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents/complainants submitted before us that the opposite party had illegally collected the amount of Rs. 31,105.50 as the complainant was not liable to pay the flat rate interest from the date of repossession of
the vehicle till the date of expiry of the agreement. It is also his case that the opposite party had collected Seizing charge, legal expenses, yard fee and another sum of Rs. 6,973/- towards interest from the complainant which are liable to be refunded to the complainants and it was appreciating all the evidence before the Forum below that the order was passed and the same is only to be upheld. He prayed for the dismissal of the appeal with cost.
8. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and respondents and also on perusing the records we find that it is the admitted case of both parties that the second complainant had availed a hypothecation loan from the opposite party and that the opposite party had repossessed the vehicle on 13.12.2002 from the complainant due to the default in payment. It is also admitted that the complainant had paid 1,94,409/- for releasing the vehicle from the hands of the opposite party/appellant. We also find that the opposite party had levied interest from the date of repossession till the date of payment along with other amounts towards seizing charges, legal expenses, parking fees etc. The opposite party admits that the amount due from the complainant is only Rs. 1,85,036/- on the date of repossession and they have calculated interest from 13.12.2002 to 5.2.2003. It is also admitted that they have received Rs. 1,94,709/- from the complainants. Though it is argued that
the same was remitted without any objection, we find that the opposite party had repossessed the vehicle on 13.12.2002 and the amount due on that day is only 1,85,036/- But it is to be found that after 13.12.2002 the vehicle was with the opposite party and they obtained, seizing charges, parking charges and other expenses from the complainant and in such a situation charging of interest after 13.12.2002 cannot be sustained. The complainant was deprived to the use of the vehicle and it will be double Jeopardy, if the complainant is asked to pay interest also when he had no vehicle with him. We are of the opinion that though this aspect was not considered by the Forum below, the opposite party is liable to give back Rs. 9,673/- on this account. It is also to be found that the opposite party has caused much inconvenience and other troubles to the complainant. It is also evident that they have collected more amount from the complainants and in such a situation awarding of compensation of Rs. 10,000/- can only justified. The cost of Rs. 700/- awarded is only nominal and the same is sustainable.
In the result the appeal is allowed in part there by the opposite party/appellant is directed to pay to the complainant the sum of Rs. 19,673/-(9,673 + 10,000) with cost of Rs. 700/- within one month from the
date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the amount of Rs. 19,673/- shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of complaint till the date of payment.
In the facts and circumstances of the present appeal, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.
S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
JUSTICE.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
