KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 586/2010

JUDGMENT  DATED. 12.08.2011

 PRESENT:-

SHRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR     :    MEMBER

 APPELLANT

The Manager,

Indus Ind Bank Ltd.,Kottayam -2

Rep. by Sheen Jose,

Legal Executive and Power of Attorney Holder

                                    (  Rep. by Adv. B. Jayasankar)

                                             Vs

 RESPONDENT

Johnson Joseph,

Kannadikuzhiyil,

K.S.Puram, Kaduthuruthi

JUDGMENT  

SHRI.  S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR        :    MEMBER

The Opposite party in C.C. 122/09 before the C.D.R.F., Kottayam, is the appellant herein who is aggrieved by the order dated 30.3.2010 wherein and whereby the Forum has directed the appellant to return the duplicate key and R.C. book of the vehicle bearing registration No. KL5 E 8216 or in the alternative to pay Rs. 8,000/- and also Rs. 2,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as costs.

 The complainant has approached the Forum stating that he has availed a loan from the opposite party for a sum of Rs. 45,720/- and that he had repaid the amount of Rs. 88,620/- and had closed the loan.  It is his case that inspite of paying the loan amount and interest,  the R.C. book, duplicate key and No objection certificate were not given to him and alleging deficiency in service, the complaint was filed praying for directions to the opposite party to return the duplicate key, R.C. Book, No objection certificate and also compensation of Rs. 50,000/-     

            Resisting the complaint, opposite party filed version wherein it was contended that though the complainant had repaid the amount,  20 numbers of cheques were dishonoured and the complainant was liable to pay Additional Finance charges of Rs. 3,753.11.  It was also submitted that if the complainant was prepared to remit that amount with interest the opposite party was ready to issue the No Objection Certificate.  However it was also submitted that the duplicate key and the R.C. Book of the vehicle were not given to the custody of the opposite party and it is deliberately alleged that the duplicate key and the R.C. Book were with the opposite party.  Pleading that there was no deficiency in service, the opposite party prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

          The evidence consisted of affidavit filed by both sides and Ext. A1 to A5 on the side of the complainant. 

          The learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party vehemently argued before us that the order of the Forum below is without appreciating the true facts of the case in its correct perspective.   It is his very case that the Forum below ought to have found that the complainant had made repayments belatedly and hence he was liable to pay Additional Finance charges as per the terms of the loan. It is argued by him that there is no evidence to show that the complainant had entrusted the duplicate key and the R.C. Book of the Vehicle to the opposite party.  The learned counsel has also produced two documents with an application to accept them in evidence.   He has submitted before us that these documents were mentioned in the version and affidavit filed by the opposite party before the Forum below.

          On going through the records and also on hearing the arguments, we find that the Forum below had passed the order mainly believing the case of the complainant.  It is also found that though the complainant has prayed for the issue of a No Objection certificate the Forum below did not go into that aspect and pass an order in that respect.   It is also found that in the affidavit filed by the opposite party, it is found that the opposite party has relied on certain documents.  The documents produced before this Commission are photo copies of the documents that were relied on by the opposite party before the Forum below.    We find that it is just and proper to give an opportunity to the opposite party to produce the same before the Forum below and get it marked.  The opposite party is also at liberty to adduce further evidence, if any, in support of his contentions before the Forum below. 

          In the result, the appeal is allowed.  The order dated 30.3.2010 in C.C. 122/09 of CDRF, Kottayam is set aside.  The matter is remitted back to the Forum below for giving opportunity to the opposite party/appellant to adduce evidence as stated above.  In the facts and circumstances of the present appeal the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. 

          Parties are directed to appear before the Forum below on 28.9.2011.

The office is directed to return the L.C.R. along with a copy of this order to the Forum below urgently.

                                            S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR  : MEMBER

ST