IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Monday the 30th day of January, 2017
Filed on 07.10.2010
Present
- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.254/2010
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Sri. T.N. Suresh 1. The General Manager
Swarna Garbha Shriram City Union Finance Ltd. Pazhaveedu P.O. 221, Royapettah High Road
Alappuzha Mylapore, Chennai
(By Adv. R. Rajendra Prasad)
2. The Branch Manager
Shriram City Union Finance Ltd.
AMEW – 33/12, First Floor
Thiruvambadi Junction
Alappuzha
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
This is a remanded matter. The case was once heard and the President of the then Forum passed an order on 31.12.2011 allowing the complaint. Since there was no detailed order, Hon’ble State Commission suomoto taken up the matter and remanded the case for hearing for the purpose of passing a speaking order. After remanded, notices were issued to both parties for hearing the matter.
2. The case of the complainant is as follows:-
The complainant is a businessman. The complainant had availed a loan of Rs.26,100/- on 31.03.2008 for the purpose of purchasing a motor bike, Hero Honda from the opposite parties. The total sale price of the said bike is Rs.46,672/-. The complainant paid Rs.20,572/- at the time of purchasing the bike and rest of the amount Rs.26,100/- had given by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant as loan on the basis of the Hire Purchase Agreement. The complainant had given 10 blank signed cheques to the 2nd opposite party as a security in connection with the above said Hire Purchase Agreement. It is respectfully submitted that as per the agreement the complainant should repay an amount of Rs.1,715/- per month in 36 installments. The complainant had followed the terms and conditions without any default. As per the terms and conditions the opposite parties agreed to give proper guidance and better financial assistance to the complainant. But the opposite parties did not render any timely assistance and guidance. The complainant repays agreed monthly installments to the 2nd opposite party, but the same was not considered in the account of the complainant. Therefore, the complainant was constrained to apply for the copy of statement of account. They intentionally abstained from issuing the copy of the statement of account. On 28.9.2010 some Gundas of the opposite party tried to take away the bike from the possession of the complainant forcefully. They had left from the place by the timely interference of the complainant. The opposite parties are never expected to act as a greedy money lender. The act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complaint is filed to restrain the opposite parties from all further proceedings for recovery of any amount covered by the loan along with compensation.
2. The version of the opposite parties is as follows:-
The complainant executed loan cum hypothecation agreement with the opposite party on 31.03.2008, at the Alappuzha branch office of this opposite party company for a hypothecation facility for an amount of Rs.30,600/- with interest @ 17.12% per annum and as per clause 3 of the agreement, a late payment @ 2.5% per month will follow. The period of installment is 24 months and the installment amount is Rs.1,715/- only. The complainant is great defaulter of the monthly installments and an amount of Rs.43,081/- is due as on 18.2.2011 and he is not willing to pay the afore said debt in spite of the repeated demands made by the opposite party. Now, the actual intention of the complainant is to abstain from the payments of the amount due by any way and for that in an experimental capacity present petition is filed. Moreover, even according to the clauses in the agreement entered in between the complainant and the opposite party, this opposite party has every right to take the possession of the vehicle in the event of committing default by the complainant. It is also worth while to mention at this juncture that the complainant had already accepted this clauses and he is fully aware of all these aspects. The statement of accounts as on 18.2.2011 is also produced herewith. Being a chronic defaulter of monthly installments the complainant had violated all the conditions of the agreement signed by him with this opposite party. The opposite parties never caused any hardships to the complainant.
3. The complainant filed proof affidavit and two documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 and A2. The opposite parties also filed proof affidavit and produced 2 documents which marked as Exts.B1 and B2.
3. The points came up for considerations are:-
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief and cost?
4. According to the complainant he had availed a loan of Rs.26,100/- from the opposite parties on 31.3.2008 for the purpose of purchasing a motor bike. According to the opposite party the complainant executed a loan cum hypothecation agreement with the opposite party on 31.3.2008 for an amount of Rs.30,600/-. Opposite parties admitted in the version that the complainant had remitted only Rs.17,735/- till 18.2.2011 and the outstanding balance due from the complainant is Rs.43,081/-. But the allegation of the complainant is that he had so far remitted Rs.61,740/- and the said amount was not properly credited by the 2nd opposite party. But he had not produced any evidence in order to substantiate his allegation. Apart from that from Ext.B2 the loan statement produced by the opposite party, it is clear that complainant committed default frequently in remitting the due amount.
In the light of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that this a fit case in which the party can settle the account by lawful means and without prejudice, the right of the opposite parties to realize any amount found to be due on settlement of account and the opposite parties are directed not to take any steps to repossess the vehicle otherwise than by due process of law.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of January, 2017.
Smt.Elizabeth George (President)
Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext.A1 - Certified copy of RC particulars
Ext.A2 - Receipts issued by Shymas Auto Sales to the complainant
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
Ext.B1 - Loan cum hypothecation agreement
Ext.B2 - Loan statement
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite party/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
