DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 16h day of March 2018
Present : Smt.Shiny.P.R. President
: Smt.Suma.K.P. Member Date of filing: 13/12/2016
: Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member
(C.C.No.198/2016)
Nithin,
S/o Balan, - Complainant
2/41, Palakurissi,
Puthanthara,
Nemmara (PO),
Palakkad,
(By.Adv.P.Sreeprakah)
V/s
Indus India Bank Ltd, - Opposite party
Vadakkanchery (branch)
Rep.by its Manager.
(By Adv.K.A.Kailas)
O R D E R
Smt.Suma.K.P, Member
The complainant herein is a business man. He alleges that the opposite party had approached him by offering a two wheeler loan and a loan was availed by the complainant after proper verifications. The complainant had purchased a Hero Honda Glamour Vehicle bearing registration no.KL-49-D-2640 on 27.09.2012 and the opposite party had financed him for the same. The EMI was fixed for a period of 24 months comprising of Rs.2,200/- to be paid on 21st of every month starting from 21.10.2012 to 21.07.2014. The complainant alleges that he had paid an amount of Rs.15,240/- towards the vehicle loan. At the time of availing the loan the complainant had given eight postdated cheques for the EMI for en-cashing. The complainant further submits that at the time of availing the loan the opposite party had assured that on the date of last EMI itself they will return the original RC books and all other documents and also lift the hypothecation and cancel the lease agreement and the vehicle will be transferred in the complainant’s name. Accordingly the complainant had paid all the EMIs along with defaulted interest as on 30.08.2014. But the opposite party had not taken any steps as promised, so as to cancel the hypothecation and higher purchase agreement and had not returns the original documents entrusted to them at the time of availing the loan. Moreover they had asked him to come to the office on several occasions, delaying the procedures. Complainant submits that he had suffered lot of mental agony, financial loss and loss of time due to the above act of the opposite parties. Hence he had issued the lawyer notice to the opposite parties on 19.06.2015 demanding the above, but the opposite party had sent a reply stating false allegations. The opposite party had also promised to fulfill his demand and requested him not to initiate any legal proceedings and the matter can be settled amicably between them. But the opposite party did not keep up that promise. Hence the complainant has approached before the Forum seeking an order directing the opposite party to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and financial loss suffered by him and also to cancel the hypothecation of his vehicle KL-49-D-2640. The complainant further alleges that he had decided to transfer the vehicle to one Mr.Aneesh during 2015 May but he could not do it due to the above act of the opposite parties.
Notice was issued to the opposite party for appearance. Opposite party entered appearance through power of attorney holder and filed version denying all the allegations in the complainant. It is false to state that the opposite party had approached the complainant by offering a two wheeler loan. Actually the complainant was approaching the bank for getting loans. After proper verification the opposite party extends loan to the complainant. It is true that the opposite party had financed for a Hero Honda Glamour vehicle to the complainant on 27.09.2012 for a period of 24 months comprising of Rs.2,200/- as EMI on 21st of every month starting from 21.10.2012 to 21.07.2014. It is also false to state that the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.15,240/- towards the vehicle loan. The complainant had misrepresented the facts before the Forum. The opposite parties never allow full amount as finance to the consumers. The balance amount must be paid by the consumers to the dealer for getting the vehicle. More over the complainant had given 8 postdated EMI cheques for en-cashing but 4 of his cheques were dishonored. Even though the payment date of the complainant falls on the 21st of every month except a few, all the payments were delayed which cause additional interest charges in his account. An amount of Rs.2,414/- is pending in his account. Opposite parties are always ready to give the NOC to the complainant if he cleared the overdue. It is also false that the last EMI was on 30.08.2014. It was actually on 21.07.2014. Even now, the opposite parties are ready for an amicable settlement with the complainant. There was no deficiency of service from the part of the opposite parties. The complainant had not suffered any mental or financial strain. He is not entitled to get any of the relief claimed in the petition. Hence the complaint had to be dismissed.
Complainant filed chief affidavit. Opposite party filed IA 127/2017 seeking permission to cross examine the complainant. Opposite party also filed chief affidavit along with documents. Opposite party also filed another application as IA 199/2017 to strike of the pleadings of the complainant. Complainant filed counter in the above application. IA was heard and dismissed. Complainant was examined as PW1. Exts.A1 to A5 except A2 was marked. Marking of Ext.A2 document was objected by the counsel of opposite party as it was not signed by the proper authority. Exts.B1 to B3 was marked from the part of the opposite party. Evidence was closed and the matter was heard.
The following issues that arise for consideration are.
- Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties?
- If so, what are the relief and cost?
Issues No.1 & 2
We have perused the documents and evidence produced before the Forum. It is obvious from Exts.B2 & B3 that the complainant had to pay the EMI before 21st of every month failing which penal interest has to be paid. Moreover from the account statement produced it is viewed that 4 cheques issued by the complainant was dishonored. As per the dishonor the complainant had to pay charges for the same. Accordingly there is an outstanding due of Rs.2,414/- from the complainant towards the opposite party. During cross examination the complainant had also deposed that the opposite party had intimated him to settle the issue amicably by paying an amount of Rs.1,000/- towards the amount overdue. But the complainant was not prepared for the same, and had approach before the Forum stating silly reasons. According to Ext.B3 agreement he is bound to pay the above charges. Hence, we cannot attribute deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party for not cancelling the hypothecation. He had also admitted in cross examination that the RC book was sent from the RTO office directly. In the above circumstances, complaint is dismissed without cost.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 16th day of March 2018.
Sd/-
Shiny.P.R
President
Sd/-
Suma.K.P
Member
Sd/-
V.P.Anantha Narayanan
Member
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 - Photo copy of RC Book of the vehicle No.KL-49-D-2640
Ext.A2 - Photo copy of bank statement (objected by opposite party)
Ext.A3 series - Photo copy of lawyer notice dated. 19.06.2015 sent by
complainant’s advocate to opposite party with postal receipt
Ext.A4 series - Photo copy of lawyer notice dated.08.06.3016 sent by
complainant’s advocate to opposite party with acknowledgement card
and postal receipts
Ext.A5 - Photo copy of reply sent by opposite party to the complainant’s advocate
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite parties
Ext.B1 - Photo copy of settlement proposal dated.06.02.2017
Ext.B2 - Photo copy of loan application submitted by the complainant to opposite party
Ext.B3 - Photo copy of loan agreement
Witness examined on the side of complainant
PW1 - Nithin.P
Witness examined on the side of opposite party
Nil
Cost
Nil
