D.O.F: 17/06/2015
D.O.O: 21/11/2018
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.No.150/2015
Dated this, the 21th day of November 2018
PRESENT:
SRI.ROY PAUL :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
Safiya. K, Aged 52 Years
W/o Hassankutty, House No.4/306
Kottoor House ,Post Kottoor, . : Complainant
Kasaragod
(Adv: A.Balakrishnan Nair)
1. The Branch Manager,
Indus Ind Bank Ltd, Madan’s Arcade,
Hosdurg, Kanhangad -671315 : Opposite Parties
(Adv: Babuchandran.K)
2. Indus Ind Bank Ltd,
Consumer Finance Division, Old No.115,
116, New No.34, G.N. Chetty Road,
T. Nagar, Chennai-600017.
ORDER
SRI.ROY PAUL: PRESIDENT
This complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act has been filed for an order directing the opposite parties to issue loan clearance certificate along with other documents collected from the complainant with compensation and cost to the complainant
The gist of the complaint is that:-
The complainant has obtained a vehicle loan of Rs 12,50,000/- from the opposite party on 28 /12/2011 which is repayable with interest and insurance charges in 48 monthly instalments starting from 01/04/2011. The complainant started repayment on 26/02/2011 and all the instalments were paid before the due dates. The last instalment was paid on 17/01/2015, after the repayment of the entire loan amount when the complainant contacted the opposite party for the loan clearance certificate along with signed blank cheque leaves copy of title dead of the property, BT receipts and signed blank stamp papers entrusted as security. The opposite party has failed to issue the same but they demanded a huge amount from the complainant towards the loan account. Due to the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties the complainant has suffered much hardship, mental agony, loss of time and money. Hence the complaint.
The opposite parties entered appearance and filed their written version before the Fora by denying all the allegations levelled in the complaint as false and baseless. The complainant never paid the monthly instalments in the stipulated dates. The date of termination of the agreement was on 01/02/2015. The opposite party never collected signed blank cheques, stamp paper, copy of title deed , BT receipts duplicate key ,etc from the complainant as alleged . The complainant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.15961/- towards the loan account a Rs. 2502/- towards the additional interest. So there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and complaint may be dismissed with cost.
On the basis of the rival contention of the pleadings the following issues were framed for consideration.
- Whether there is any deficiency service on the part of the opposite party?
- Whether the complaint is entitled for the any reliefs?
- Reliefs and cost?
The evidence consists of the oral testimony of the Pw1 and Ext A1 to A4 series documents marked on his part. No evidence or documents were produced from the side of the opposite parties.
ISSUE NO: 1
The complainant adduced evidence by submitting his chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination to the tune of the pleadings in the complaint and denying in the contention in the version. He was cross examined as pw1 by the opposite party and he relied on Exts A1 to A4 documents also to substantiate to his case. According to the complainant he paid the entire instalments of the loan ever prior to the due dates. But after the clearance of the loan the opposite party has failed to issue clearance certificate with other security documents entrusted. There is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and complainant has suffered much hardship, mental agony, loss of time and money.
The learned counsel for the opposite parties vehemently argued that there was delay in the payments on 27/07/2011, 28/05/2012, 01/10/2012, 29/05/2013 and 1/9/2014, Pw1 admitted the same also. So for the said delayed payments the opposite parties are entitled for overdue interest along with other charges and additional interest. Thus the complainant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.15, 961/- towards the loan account and Rs. 2502/- towards additional interest as on 14/05/2015 . So there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and complaint may be dismissed with cost.
On perusal of the pleadings documents and evaluation of the evidence tendered before the Fora we could see that Ext A1 is the repayment chart issued by the opposite parties and A4 series bills are documents to show the repayments. On perusal of the Ext A4 series repayment up to 25th instalment the payment were made in much advance. But during the payments of instalments 26 to 46 the payments were in delay. Considering the advance payments in instalments of 1to 25 the delay in payments 26 to 46 can be set off. Hence the opposite party are liable to issue a loan clearance certificate to the complainant considering the aforesaid circumstances. So we hold that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The collection of 1 instalment at the time of loan agreement is also amounts to deficiency of the service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the issue no 1 found against the opposite party and answered accordingly.
ISSUE NO: 2&3
There is no evidence before the Fora that the complainant and had entrusted any blank signed cheques, stamp paper, title deed copy, BT receipts and duplicate key to opposite parties. But as discussed above considering the nature of the repayment of the loan instalments, we hold the opposite party is not entitled for any amount from the complainant. So the opposite parties are liable to issue the loan clearance certificate to the complainant along with Rs. 2000/- as litigation cost. We are of the opinion that the complainant is not entitled for any separate compensation from the opposite party considering the nature of repayment made for the instalments 26 to 46. Thus the issue no 2 and 3 are also accordingly answered.
In the result the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties to issue loan clearance certificate of the vehicle to the complainant along with Rs. 2000/-(Rupees Two thousand only) as litigation cost within 30 days of the receipt of order. Failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 1986.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhbits:
A1- Payment Schedule issued by Opposite Party No.1Dated: 23-09-2011.
A2- Office copy of the registered lawyer notice dated: 07-05-2015.
A3- Reply notice issued by the Opposite Party No.2 dated: 14-05-2015.
A4- (Series) – Receipt passed by Opposite Party No.1
Witness Examined.
PW1- K.Hassankutty.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Senior Superintendent
Ps/
