KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 108/2019
JUDGMENT DATED: 18.11.2024
(Against the Order in C.C. 150/2015 of DCDRC, Kasaragod)
PRESENT:
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
APPELLANTS:
- The Branch Manager, Indus Ind Bank Ltd., Madan’s Arcade, Hosdurg, Kanhangad-671 315.
- Indus Ind Bank Ltd., Consumer Finance Division, Old No. 115, 116, New Number 34, G.N. Chetty Road, T-Nagar, Chennai-600 017.
(By Adv. Unnikrishnan V.)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
Safiya K., W/o Hassankutty, House No. 4/306, Kottoor House, Post Kottoor, Kasaragod-671 542.
JUDGMENT
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
The appellants are the opposite parties in C.C. No. 150/2015 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kasaragod (District Commission for short) and the respondent is the complainant. On 21.11.2018, the District Commission had allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to issue loan clearance certificate of the vehicle to the complainant along with Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) as litigation costs. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, this appeal was filed by the opposite parties.
2. The respondent/complainant had filed a complaint before the District Commission by resorting to Sec. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service. The complainant had obtained a vehicle loan for 12,50,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakh Fifty Thousand only) from the opposite parties on 28.12.2011. The loan amount was agreed to be repaid in 48 monthly instalments commencing from 01.04.2011. The complainant started repayment on 26.02.2011 and she had paid the entire amount within the requisite period. The last payment was made on 17.01.2015 and when she contacted the opposite parties for clearance certificate and the connected documents entrusted with the opposite parties at the time of availing the loan, they demanded huge amount from the complainant towards the loan amount. This conduct is alleged as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and hence the complaint was filed before the District Commission.
3. The opposite parties had entered appearance and filed written version to the effect that the complainant never paid the monthly instalments as stipulated. The date of termination of the agreement was on 01.02.2015. Since the complainant did not make payment on the due dates, she is liable to pay an additional sum of Rs. 15,961/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty One only) towards the loan amount and Rs. 2,502/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred and Two only) as additional interest. There is no deficiency in service and they sought for dismissal of the complaint.
4. On the side of the complainant, PW1 was examined and Exhibits A1 to A4 were also marked. Exhibit A1 is the payment schedule towards the loan availed by the complainant. Exhibit A2 is the copy of the notice issued by the advocate of the complainant dated 07.05.2015. Exhibit A3 is the reply sent by the opposite parties. Exhibit A4 series are the receipts issued by the opposite parties with respect to the payments made by the complainant.
5. Heard the counsel for the appellants. The records from the District Commission were called for and perused. Though notice was served on the respondent/complainant, there is no representation for the respondent.
6. Admittedly, there was default on the part of the complainant in remitting the instalments as stipulated in the agreement. The default in remitting the payment had commenced from instalment Nos. 26 to 46. The default on the part of the complainant in remitting the payment was elicited through her cross examination. In certain occasions, the remittance is seen made after elapsing a period of three months. The default had started from 26th instalment onwards. The complainant had conceded before the District Commission that she had failed to effect repayment of the instalment within the stipulated time. So, it is evident that the complainant was a defaulter in making repayment of the loan. When the complainant was a defaulter, she cannot allege deficiency in service against the opposite parties. The legal position in this regard has been well settled by the ruling of the National Commission in Anil Rana Vs. M/s ATS Estates Pvt. Ltd. and another reported in 2023 1 CPR (NC) 261. Admittedly the complainant was a defaulter and she failed to remit the instalments on the due dates. When default occurs, the opposite parties are entitled to charge interest and there must be deficit towards the principal amount paid. The District Commission did not consider this aspect and took an arbitrary stand by directing the opposite parties to write off the amount, even after reaching a conclusion that the complainant had failed to make repayment of the instalments as agreed. The order passed by the District Commission is arbitrary. When parties entered into a contract stipulating conditions and one party violates the terms of the contract, the District Commission had no authority to direct the opposite parties to write off the amount. The order passed by the District Commission does not sustain since no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties was established. The District Commission ought not have allowed the complaint and directed the appellants to issue a clearance certificate. The order suffers material irregularity and hence it is liable to be reversed.
In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 21.11.2018 in C.C. No. 150/2015 on the files of the District Commission is set aside and the complaint shall stand dismissed. The parties shall bear their respective costs.
The statutory deposit made by the appellants shall be refunded to the appellants, on proper acknowledgement.
AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
jb