BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 30th day of December, 2008

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.97/2008

Between

Complainant : Shiji K.C , S/o Chellappan,

Karickanattu House,

Mankulam P.O,

Thalumkandam,

Idukki District.

(By Adv: Babichen.V.George)

And

Opposite Parties : 1.The Branch Manager,

Indus Ind Bank Limited,

Kattappana.

(Formerly known Ashok Leyland Finance)

(By Adv: Jose Thomas)

2. Indus Ind Bank Limited,

2401, Gen.Thimmayya Road,

Cantonment, Pune - 411 001.

(By Adv: Jose Thomas)

3. Priyanka Motors,

Kattappana,

Idukki District.

O R D E R

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

The complaint is filed for getting compensation for the unfair trade practice done by the opposite party in closing a loan taken by the complainant for his vehicle.
 

The complainant purchased a motor cycle by the brand name Hero Honda Splendor on 2.04.2002 from the 3^rd opposite party. The finance for the vehicle was arranged by the Ist and 2^nd opposite parties through the 3^rd opposite party. An amount of Rs.37,864/- was availed from the opposite party as loan for the vehicle. So there is a total of 36 monthly installments and the complainant gave 36 post-dated cheques of Rs.1,626/- each for the future installments. The price of the vehicle was Rs.41,307/-. The complainant was promptly paying the monthly installments through SBT, Munnar Branch. The 5^th installment was defaulted, due to mistake, was paid through DD drawn on SBT, Munnar later. But it was paid with penal interest of Rs.200/- payable at Kottayam on 26.08.2002. The due date of the 36 installments was on 7.03.2005. Certain installments were in due from the complainant and they were settled by the Legal Officer of the opposite party on 25.10.2005 for Rs.6,178/-. So the complainant cleared the entire dues and no amount is owe to the Ist and 2^nd opposite parties. NOC, Registration Certificate, duplicate key etc. of the vehicle were kept at the Ist opposite party's office were not given to the complainant at the time of closing the loan. The Legal Officer of the Ist opposite party told that the documents were at the Ist opposite party and requested the complainant to reach there after one month for the receipt of NOC, Registration Certificate and duplicate key. The complainant reached the Ist to 3^rd opposite parties several times. But the RC book and documents of the vehicle were not returned to the complainant. On 5.02.2007, a legal notice was issued by the Ist and 2^nd opposite parties for demanding Rs.1,826/- as overdue. The complainant is not entitled to pay any amount to the opposite parties and the opposite party is willfully not delivering the documents and key to the complainant. The petition is filed for getting back the documents and also for deficiency in service.
 

2. As per the written version filed by the Ist and 2^nd opposite parties, the complainant is not a consumer as per Consumer Protection Act and it is admitted that the vehicle was given to the complainant, by the financial assistance of Ist and 2^nd opposite parties and a hire purchase agreement was entered between the complainant and the Ist and 2nd opposite parties. The opposite party is the owner of the vehicle and the complainant is the hirer. It is true that post-dated cheques with amount written on it were entrusted to the opposite party as security while availing financial assistance by the complainant. Several cheques issued by the petitioner were dishonoured by the banks for the want of funds in the account. The petitioner was a chronic defaulter and the complainant has to pay an amount of Rs.7,104/- to the opposite parties as per hire purchase agreement including the additional finance charges, hire money etc. There was no consensus or settlement occurred at Kattappana. The Ist opposite party informed the complainant that he would get the NOC after clearing the dues with the Ist and 2nd opposite parties. There is no original documents or duplicate key with the Ist and 2^nd opposite parties. The complainant is trying to evade his last payments to the Ist and 2^nd opposite parties. The complaint filed by the complainant before the Forum is on experimental basis and not valid.

3. The 3rd opposite party was exparte.
 

4. The point for consideration is whether there is any unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?
 

5. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P4 marked on the side of the complainant. The Ist opposite party was examined as DW1 and Exts.R1 and R2 were marked on the side of the opposite parties.

6. The POINT :- Complainant purchased a Hero Honda motor cycle from the 3^rd opposite party on 2.04.2002. The business executives of the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties were present at the time of purchasing the same. The 3^rd opposite party arranged a loan of Rs.37,864/- from the Ist opposite party. The above loan amount along with interest were divided into 36 installments. The complainant gave 36 post-dated cheques of Rs.1,626/- each for the future installments. The price of the vehicle was Rs.41,307/-. The complainant was examined as PW1. He deposed that he had repaid the entire loan installments. The 5^th installment was defaulted due to mistake and it was paid through DD from SBT, Munnar and was send by courier. Ext.P1 is the copy of the DD and Ext.P2 is the courier receipt of the same. The entire loan transaction were closed by a settlement according to the Arbitration order and settled by the Legal Officer, Cochin on 25.10.2005, last payment was Rs.6,175/-. Ext.P3 is the receipt of the settlement of the same. But the N.O.C from the finance company, the registration certificate and the duplicate key were not delivered to the complainant. The Ist opposite party was examined as DW1. As per DW1, the RC book and such other documents are not keeping by the Ist opposite party. They are endorsing the loan details in the RC Book through the registration authority and the same is giving to the parties itself. As per DW1, the complainant is not yet closed the loan account. Ext.R1 is the statement of account issued by the Ist opposite party. Ext.R2 is the copy of the Hire Purchase Agreement created by the Ist opposite party and the complainant. As per the cross examination of the learned counsel for the complainant, DW1 admitted that in the Ext.R1 statement the due amount of the complainant is written as 8014 and some paise. But as per the written version, the amount due to the Ist opposite party by the complainant is Rs.7,014/-.
 

7. As per Ext.P3, the settlement according to the arbitration order, which is settled by the Legal Officer of Ist and 2^nd opposite parties at Kochi, it is written that an amount of Rs.6,178/- is paid by the complainant on 25.10.2005 and the loan is settled.

But as per DW1, there is an amount, again due to the Ist opposite party, but the exact amount is not deposed by the opposite party. The RC Book and the duplicate key are not with the Ist and 2^nd opposite parties. It is clear from Ext.R2 agreement that the Ist opposite party was present on the date of purchase of the vehicle, that is on 2.04.2002. Because both the complainant and the Ist and 2^nd opposite parties were signed in that agreement. In this case, the complainant delivered that he has paid the entire loan amount. But the Ist and 2nd opposite parties denies the same. As per the Exts.P1 and P2 documents, it shows that the complainant paid the 5^th installment in DD, the DD was sent by the courier in the same day itself, that is on 26.08.2002. Both the dates tally each other. If the entire loan amount was not paid by the complainant, the opposite party ought to have taken legal action against the complainant for the recovery of the money or the vehicle, because it is a private finance company and the period of repayment of the loan is already expired before 3 years. So we think that the entire loan amount is already closed by the complainant. Then the complainant have the right to get the RC Book and the duplicate key of the vehicle, which is not yet delivered to the complainant, is a gross unfair trade practice. If it is with the 3^rd opposite party, the Ist and 2^nd opposite parties have equal responsibility to hand over it to the complainant. The complainant have suffered a lot because of non-possession of the RC book, key and NOC. The sale of the vehicle is denied, police has several times harassed the complainant with fine. So the opposite parties are directed to hand over the RC Book, duplicate key, No Objection Certificate etc. from the finance company to the complainant. If it is lost from them, they have to meet the expenses for making the duplicate for the complainant. The complainant is also entitled for Rs.5,000/- for his mental pain and hardships suffered due to non-possession of the documents and non-plying of the vehicle.
 

Hence the petition allowed. The opposite parties 1 to 3 are directed to hand over the RC Book and duplicate key to the complainant or pay Rs.7,000/-. The opposite parties are also directed to give the No Objection Certificate from the finance company. The complainant is entitled to get a compensation of Rs.5,000/- for the mental pain and hardships suffered by him. Opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as cost of this petition. The opposite parties 1 to 3 are severally and jointly liable for the same within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of December, 2008

Sd/-

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)

Sd/-

SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of Complainant :

PW1 - Shiji.K.C

On the side of Opposite Parties :

DW1 - Sheen Jose

Exhibits:

On the side of Complainant:

Ext.P1 - Photocopy of DD dated 26.08.2007 for Rs.1,826/-

Ext.P2 - Courier Receipt dated 26.08.2002

Ext.P3 - Receipt dated 25.10.2005 for settlement

Ext.P4 - Legal Notice dated 5.02.2007 issued by the opposite party

On the side of Opposite Parties :

Ext.R1 - True copy of Statement of Account as on 6.08.2008

Ext.R2 - True copy of Hire Purchase Agreement