By Sri.M.S. Sasidharan, Member:
The complainant’s case is that she availed a loan for the purchase of a Maruthi Omni car bearing registration No.KL8/AD-4626 from the 1st respondent through the 2nd respondent for earning her livelihood. The complainant has availed a loan of Rs.1,83,000/- at the rate of 5.25% per annum. She had to remit Rs.5657/- for the first 30 instalments, Rs.5157/- for the next 11 instalments and Rs.5189 for the last instalment. The total EMI is Rs.2,31,626/- including Rs.15,000/- as three year insurance premium. But as per the benefit received on the purchase of the vehicle 1st year insurance for the vehicle was free. The complainant has remitted Rs.1,81,755/- from 20.1.05 to 10.8.07 whereas she was entitled to pay only Rs.1,74,867/-. Thus the complainant realized that she had remitted Rs.11,918/- in excess. So she approached the respondent and requested them to adjust the amount towards the future instalments. The respondent promised to verify and to do necessary adjustments. The complainant has not made further instalments. But on 8.10.07 the complainant received a telegram from the respondents to surrender the vehicle at Thrissur West Police Station since there is an overdue of Rs.20,517/- or remit the amount on or before 10.10.07. Since the act of the respondent amounts to unfair trade practice the complaint filed.
2. The 1st respondent called absent and set exparte.
3. The 2nd respondent denied the allegation in the version filed by him. He has stated therein that the insurance amount of Rs.15,000/- was for the three instalments during the period of agreement after reducing the 1st year free insurance. The telegram was issued to remit the defaulted instalments or to surrender the vehicle as the conditions in the agreement. The amount stated in the telegram was the amount to be remitted by the complainant as per the agreement. The respondent has committed no unfair trade practice. Hence dismiss the complaint.
4. The points for consideration are:
(1) Is the complainant entitled to get the relief sought for?
(2) Other reliefs and costs.
5. The evidence adduced are Exts. P1 to P5 and Ext. R1. No oral evidence has been adduced by the complainant and the respondents.
6. Points: The complainant’s case is that she has remitted Rs.1,81,785/- from 20.1.05 to 10.8.07 as per the Ext. P3 series receipts. At that time she was entitled to pay only 1,74,867/-. The 1st year insurance was free as per the benefit received by her. So the complainant claimed that she had remitted an amount of Rs.11,918/- in excess to the amount to be remitted by her. The complainant requested the respondents to adjust the excess amount to the future instalments and the respondents assured to verify and to do necessary adjustments. But no adjustment was made and the complainant received the Ext. P1 telegram informing her to surrender the vehicle or to remit the defaulted amount. The complainant claimed it as an unfair trade practice. The respondents have stated that the complainant had defaulted the instalments and Ext. P1 telegram was issued to levy the defaulted amount as per the conditions of the agreement.
7. The loan agreement was made on 31.1.05 vide Ext. P2 schedule and the complaint was filed on 9.10.07. As per the Ext. P2 schedule of repayment the complainant has to pay 33 instalments which comes to an amount of Rs.1,85,181/-. She has also to pay Rs.15000/- as insurance amount whereas the complainant has stated that she is liable to pay only Rs.10,000/- as the 1st insurance was free. Even if it is admitted the complainant was liable to pay Rs.1,95,181/- as on 1.10.07. The complainant has produced Ext. P4 series of receipts and as per these receipts she has remitted Rs.1,81,755/- including Ext. P5 receipt which is remitted on 15.10.07. The complainant has already admitted that she has defaulted the instalments for the month of September and October 2007. As per Ext. R1an amount of Rs.52,255.98 was due from the complainant. But as per the evidence adduced by the complainant itself an amount of Rs.13,426/- was due from her as on 1.10.07. Hence the complaint lacks merits and it is liable to be dismissed.
8. In the result the complaint stands dismissed.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 24th day of March 2012.
