THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.
C.C.141/2009
Dated this the 16th day of November 2013.
( Present: Sri. G. Yadunadhan, B.A., LLB. : President)
Sri. L. Jyothikumar, B.A., LLB. : Member
Smt.Beena Joseph, M.A : Member
ORDER
By G.Yadunadhan, President:
The case of the complainant is that complainant had availed a loan from the first opposite party for the vehicle LMV Goods carrier, the monthly installment of the said vehicle was regularly paid. On 05.03.2005 some persons believing the opposite party served for seizing the vehicle, taken away the 1075 model Mini lorry from the custody of the complainant. In fact some dues are pending but opposite party deny to accept the installment, and after seizure of the vehicle, the vehicle was sold to somebody else without giving notice to the complainant by suppressing the model, after a few days again opposite party No.1 initiated proceedings to get back the balance amount through demand notice and also filed a suit before the Sub Court Kozhikode. The act of the opposite party is a clean deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. There fore complainant is seeking relief against the opposite parties directing them to pay a compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-.
First and Second opposite party entered in appearance and filed their version stating that as per the terms of agreement, regular payment of equated monthly installments(EMI) as the essence of the contract and in case of default the customer have expressly authorized the opposite party to take back the possession of the vehicle with or without notice. It is also further agreed by the complainant that the opposite party is entitled to sell or otherwise deal with the vehicle by public or private auction or private treaty without being liable for any loss and to apply the net proceeds there of firstly towards satisfaction of all costs incurred in respect such sale or dealing, secondly towards liquidation of balance of the interest and other sum payable by the complainant to the bank thirdly towards the principal authorize of the loan outstanding. The complainant had paid only 2 installments towards his loan. When this complainant became frequent defaulter these opposite parties had sent registered letter to the complainant for repayment. But the complainant never replied or communicated. The opposite party sold the vehicle with accurate value. After payment of some installments the payment was regularly defaulted thereby attracting over due interest and other charges as mentioned in the terms of the agreement. After re-possession, the bank had also informed the fact of the termination of agreement to the complainant vide registered letter. The complainant was given 15 days time to clear the balance outstanding amount, but till date the complainant had not even cared to approach the bank to settle the outstanding amount and had approached this forum suppressing the true facts . Further there is no deficiency of service involved in the subject matter which is based upon a contract between the parties. Under these circumstance complainant is not entitled to get any relief from the opposite parties.
Points for consideration.
1) Whether any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?
2) Whether complainant is entitled to get any relief from the first and second opposite party? If so what is the relief and cost.
Complainant was examined as PW1 and Exhibits. A1 to A7 were marked. Opposite party was examined as RW1 and Ext.B1 marked. On perusal of Ext.A1 is the purchase bill issued in the year 2004, Ext.A2 is the R.C in the name of the complainant. Ext.A3 is the reply notice issued on 12.07.2005. Ext.A4 is the lawyer notice issued by opposite party stating the present liability. Ext.A5 Another lawyer notice issued to the opposite party, it is admitted that complainant had paid two installments towards his loan, he is a frequent defaulter as per agreement of seized the vehicle. Actually the vehicle bearing No.KL.18.A.5463 re-possessed by opposite party on 04.03.2005, case filed on 27.03.2009 after a lapse of 4 years. It is clear that case is barred by limitation. In Suenra Kumar Agarwal vs. Telco Finance ltd the National consumer Disputes Redressal Commission 2010 CPJ(163) NC stated that there is no relief for repossessing vehicle in case of default in payment of loan installments. No document was seen produced regarding the regular payment of installments, on the other hand no counter evidence adduced regarding the habitual defaulter. Considering all the facts and evidence Fora is not in a position to interfere of the action taken by the opposite party. No deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. Therefore complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court this the 16th day of November 2013.
Date of filing:27.03.2009.
SD/-PRESIDENT SD/- MEMBER SD/- MEMBER
APPENDIX
Documents exhibited for the complainant.
Al. Purchase bill dtd.28.09.04 for Rs.6,03,000/-
A2 Registration particulars in the name of the complainant
A3 Reply Notice issued by the complainant dtd.12/07/05
A4. Lawyer notice issued to the complainant dtd.15/07/05
A5. Registered Lawyer Reply notice dtd.25.07.06
A6.O.S.41/06 of Sub Court, Calicut Plaint u7nder order VII Rule I of the code of
Civil Procedure 1908
A7. Original summons of O.S. dtd.03.03.2007.
Documents exhibited for the opposite party:
B1. Account statement issued by ICICI Bank dtd. 21.05.2010.
Witness examined for the complainant:
PW1.Noushad.O.K(Complainant)
Witness examined for the opposite party:
RW1. Babu Sheejith, Legal Manager of ICICI Bank at Thrissur.
Sd/-President
//True copy//
(Forwarded/By Order)
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
