By Sri. Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member
The grievances of the complainant is as follows:-
1. As per the contention made in the complaint, the complainant is a self –employed person and he had purchased a bus numbered as KL-55-F-7833 after spending Rs.20,00,000/-(Rupees Twenty lakh only). In order to meet financial constraints, the complainant availed a loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three lakh only) from the first opposite party fixing the repayment in 30 monthly instalments starting from 19/08/2016. It is alleged by the complainant that the first opposite party managed to procure many signatures of the complainant on printed form, blank stamp paper, and 10 blank cheques under the manoeuvre of sanctioning of loan. According to the complainant, the interest rate was calculated at flat rate and he was bound to pay the interest and principal loan amount in 30 EMI. It is stated by the complainant that, he could not operate bus service due to labour dispute. As a result, financial liabilities incurred to the complainant. It is stated by the complainant that he was remitted Rs. 2,50,000/-(Rupees Two lakh and twenty five thousand only), Rs. 15,000/-(Rupees Fifteen thousand only) each for three times along with Rs. 50,000/- towards interest. It is further stated by the complainant that the pandemic Covid-19 also affected to his earning capacity. It is also stated by the complainant that the first opposite party rescheduled the instalment chart. The complainant contacted the first opposite party to get final figure of due amount to close the loan. It was informed by the opposite party that the complainant should have remitted Rs. 1,60,000/-(Rupees One lakh and sixty thousand only) before 31/03/2021. It is alleged by the complainant that , the first opposite party was adjusting the paid amount to the categories of inspection charges, additional interest charged on interest , notice charges, collection charges, cheque return charges etc but not to the loan amount received by the complainant. The complainant raised another allegation that the first opposite party did not disburse full loan amount to the complainant and forged some documents to the effect of disbursement of entire loan amount. According to the complainant, the first opposite party collected first EMI on the very first day of disbursement of loan along with insurance charges. The complainant alleged that the first opposite party cheated him by using fabricated documents. It is contended by the complainant that the agreed rate of interest was 8% per annum. But the opposite party calculated entire interest from the date of disbursement and added the same with principal amount, insurance amount etc and directed to pay the same in 30 monthly instalments. When the complainant came to know about the illegal act of the opposite party, he decided to close the loan after disposing the bus. But the opposite party turned down towards the offer of the complainant. According to the complainant, the opposite party was threatening and making illegal demand of huge amount. So the complainant could not sell his vehicle for the purpose closure of the loan. It is stated by the complainant that the receipts issued to him were taken back by the first opposite party and did not return it so far. It is further alleged by the complainant that the opposite party had informed him of loss of cheques issued by the complainant at the time of availing loan. The complainant even alleged that the opposite party directed him to make a request for stop payment in the bank. It is stated that an endorsement of loan was made in the registration certificate by the second opposite party. The complainant alleged that on 20/01/2022 the first opposite party seized the vehicle by using criminal force. According to the complainant, the first opposite party committed act extortion. The first opposite party and their men even threatened the complainant about use of deadly weapon. Even though the complainant approached the police no action taken by them. The first opposite party demand Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rupees One lakh only) to hand over the possession of the vehicle to the complainant and also threatened sale of the vehicle. According to the complainant, the first opposite party had committed deficiency in service towards him and the first opposite party is making attempt to sell the vehicle by using forged documents. The complainant stated that the first opposite party was compelling him to close the loan at the rate of 24% to 36%. The demand of the opposite party is violative of loan agreement. The first opposite party did not shown any document to support the claim of huge amount for the closure of the loan. It is claimed that the market value of the vehicle comes to the tune of Rs. 17,00,000/-(Rupees Seventeen lakh only). But the opposite party is trying to sell it for a paltry amount. The act of the opposite party is arbitrary and against law. The first opposite party was illegally extracting interest on interest and other illegal charges in the name of additional hire charges, inspection charges, miscellaneous charges etc without any authority. The opposite party was trying to get illegal profit under the guise of a Hire Purchase Loan Agreement. According to the complainant there was no hire purchase agreement executed between them. The opposite party seized the vehicle even though the complainant was ready to repay the entire loan amount with interest. The complainant was not liable to pay the exorbitant amount as demanded by the first opposite party. The complainant contended that the first opposite party is functioning without complying legal formalities. The complainant is stated that the opposite party is not maintaining the vehicle properly after its repossession. Due to the acts of the opposite party, the complainant suffered mental agony and hardship. So the complainant approached the Commission for a direction to the first opposite party to return the possession of the vehicle to the complainant and also to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation . The complainant also prayed for a direction to the second opposite party to cancel the hire purchase agreement if the first opposite party is not issuing termination of hire purchase agreement in favour of the complainant and take legal action against the opposite party. The complainant also claimed Rs. 50,000/- as cost of the proceedings from the first opposite party.
2. The complaint is admitted and issued notice to the opposite parties. The first opposite party not filed the version within period as specified by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. So the Commission did not accept the version. The second opposite party filed version. The complainant also filed an interim application numbered as IA 446/2022 praying for direction to the first opposite party to produce the subject vehicle numbered as KL-55-F-7833 before the Commission and return to the complainant till the disposal of the complaint. The interim application is considered along with the final order of the complaint.
3. The second opposite party is the Regional Transport Officer, Malappuram. In the version, it is stated that the complainant is the registered owner of the vehicle numbered KL-55-F-7833 and same is hypothecated with the first opposite party. It is further stated the first opposite party has raised objections for issuance of renewal of permit, hire purchase cancellation, fitness certificate for the vehicle since a huge amount was pending under hire purchase agreement.
4. The complainant filed affidavit and produced documents. The documents on the side of the complainant is marked as Ext. A1 & A2 documents. Ext. A1 series documents are the copies of documents showing the payment done by the complainant towards the loan. Ext. A2 document is the copy of certificate of registration of the vehicle showing the ownership of vehicle in favour of the complainants.
5. The complainant is heard. Perused documents. The points arisen for the adjudication of the matter are:-
- Whether the first opposite party committed deficiency in service towards the complainant.
- Relief and cost
6.Point No.(1) and (2):-
The complainant stated that he was availed a loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- from the first opposite party. According to the complainant, the repayment was fixed in 30 instalments after his bus stood as Security for the loan. The complainant stated that he had purchased the above vehicle for Rs. 20,00,000/- and its present market value is Rs. 17,00,000/-. The complainant produced copy of registration certificate of the vehicle and marked it was Ext. A2 document. Ext. A2 document shows that vehicle is registered in favour of the complainant and same is hypothecated with the first opposite party. It is averred by the complainant, both in the complaint and affidavit, he could not operates the bus service due to Covid-19 pandemic restrictions and labour dispute. So default was occurred in repayment of loan. The complainant made accusation of repossession of vehicle by the first opposite party by means of force. The contention of the complainant is that there was no hire purchase agreement between the complainant and the first opposite party and demand of Rs. 1,60,000/- as due amount is illegal. It is further contended that he already remitted Rs. 2,50,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- each, in three times. In addition to that, the complainant also paid Rs. 50,000/- towards interest. The complainant also produced copies of document showing the payment towards the loan and same are marked as Ext. A1 series document.
7. In the evaluation of evidence, even in the absence of contra evidence by the opposite parties, the Commission finds the case of the complainant as feeble and unreliable one. Ext. A2 document clearly shows that the vehicle is hypothecated with the first opposite party. It is stated in the evidence of the complainant that the first opposite party directed to remit Rs. 15,500/- each in 30 instalments for the repayment of loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- . It is also admitted by the complainant that he committed default in repayment of loan and even ready to pay the entire loan amount with interest. So, the Commission finds that the complainant is a defaulter in repayment of loan. Moreover the complainant could not reveal the actual due amount before the Commission. The complainant made bald allegations against the first opposite party, but at the same failed to establish a clear case in his favour. The Commission also finds that Ext. A2 document is self contradictory to the case of the complainant as it shows that full amount was paid by the complainant. So the Commission cannot rely upon Ext. A1 and A2 documents to adjudicate the matter in favour of the complainant. The allegation of misuse of documents cannot be accepted by the Commission as the complainant failed to establish details of documents given to the first opposite party at the time of availing loan. Moreover the complainant did not speak about the details of blank cheques issued in favour of the first opposite party. The complainant also not succeeded in establishing exorbitant collection of money by the first opposite party and acted against the terms of the loan agreement. The statements of the complainant that the first opposite party taken back the receipts issued at the time of repayment of instalments from him and repossession of the vehicle was carried out by means of force are not reliable and trustworthy. There was no allegation raised against the second opposite party in the complaint. The entire evidence availed before the Commission also reveals that the allegation raised against the first opposite party were more than the nature of a consumer disputes. The Commission finds that the interim application No. 446/2022 is lacked merit and the complainant failed to produce evidence to support the contentions made therein. In this juncture, Commission conclude that there is no merit in the complaint and hence it is dismissed.
Dated this 8th day of May, 2023.
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 & A2
Ext.A1 : Series documents are the copies of document showing the payment done
by the complainant towards the loan.
Ext. A2 : Document is the copy of certificate of registration of the vehicle showing
the ownership of vehicle showing the ownership of vehicle in favour of
the complainants.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party : Nil
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
