KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL 145/2006
JUDGMENT DATED:28/9/2010
PRESENT
SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER
SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. The Manager, : APPELLANTS
The Investment Trust of India Ltd.,
Citizen Complex,
2nd Floor, Thalassery Road,
Kannur-2.
2. The Managing director,
The Investment Trust of India Ltd.,
Kothari Building, 117 MG Road,
Chennai 600 034.
(By Adv.A.Abdul Kharim)
Vs.
K.K.Surendran, : RESPONDENT
S/o Anandan, Driver,
Kundukulangara, P.O.Chembad,
Thalassery.
(By Adv.G.S.Kalkura)
JUDGMENT
SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER
The appellants were the opposite parties and respondent was the complainant in OP.No.2/01 on the file of CDRF, Kannur. The complaint alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in not issuing the termination letter for the purpose of effecting cancellation of the hire purchase endorsement on the registration certificate.
2. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency in service. They contended that a sum of Rs.14378/- was due as on 1.9.98 towards the hire purchase amount. Thus, the opposite parties justified their action in not issuing termination letter.
3. Before the forum below the Ext.A1 to A6 documents were marked on the side of the complainant. A witness from the side of the opposite parties was examined as DW1. Ext.B1 hire purchase agreement entered into between the complainant and the opposite party (the Investment Trust of India Limited) was also marked. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below passed the impugned order dated 2nd December, 2005 directing the opposite parties to issue termination letter to the complainant and also to issue necessary direction to the concerned RTO to delete the hypothecation endorsement from the RC book. It was also directed to pay compensation of Rs.25000/- with cost of Rs.2000/-. Hence the present appeal.
4. We heard both sides. The learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. He much argued for getting cancellation of the compensation amount of Rs.25000/- ordered by the Forum below. It is further submitted that in the copy of the complaint served on the opposite parties the compensation claimed was only Rs.5000/-. It is also submitted that the complainant was liable to pay Rs.14378/- as on 1.9.98. On the other hand, the respondent/complainant supported the impugned order passed by the Forum below and prayed for dismissal of the present appeal.
5. Admittedly the respondent/complainant availed financial assistance from the opposite parties by availing loan of Rs.1,70,000/-. It is to be noted that the respondent/complainant remitted the entire instalments as per the
repayment schedule. Ext.A1 receipt dated 30.8.95, A5 receipt dated 1.9.98 would make it clear that the entire instalments due under the repayment schedule were remitted by the complainant/borrower on 1.9.98. Ext.A6 receipt would further show that on 1.9.98 there was no balance outstanding. Had there been any such balance amount due to the opposite parties they would not have issued A6 receipt. Thus, it can be concluded that the complainant being the borrower had paid the entire amount due under the hire purchase agreement as on 1.9.98. If that be so, the opposite parties were legally liable to issue termination letter for the purpose of getting the hire purchase agreement cancelled. The Forum below has justified in holding that there was deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties in not issuing the release letter.
6. The case of the opposite parties is that a sum of Rs.14378/- was due to them as on 1.9.98. It is to be noted that the appellants/opposite parties miserably failed in producing account books regarding the aforesaid balance amount due to them from the complainant. It is further to be noted that the appellants/opposite parties totally failed to produce the statement of accounts to support their case regarding the balance amount of Rs.14378/- due from the complainant. In effect, the appellants/opposite parties failed to substantiate their case regarding the balance amount of Rs.14378/- due on 1.9.98. The Forum below is perfectly justified in holding that there was no amount due from the respondent/complainant(borrower) as on 1.9.98. Then it was incumbent upon the appellants/opposite parties to issue release letter or termination letter to the respondent/complainant. We have no hesitation to endorse the finding of the Forum below regarding deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2.
7. The Forum below has awarded compensation of Rs.25000/- for the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. It is true that the complainant had claimed compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the mental agony and inconvenience suffered by the complainant. But, the copy of the complaint served on the opposite parties would show that the compensation claimed was only Rs.5000/-. It can be seen that the aforesaid claim for Rs.5000/- was only a mistake, so to say typographical error. The original complaint would make it crystal clear that the complainant claimed compensation of Rs.50,000/- for deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Considering the nature and also gravity of the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, this Commission is of the view that the compensation of Rs.25000/- awarded by the Forum below is on the higher side. It is to be noted that the respondent/complainant availed financial assistance from the opposite parties for the purpose of purchasing a vehicle and to earn his livelihood by plying the aforesaid vehicle. Thus, to some extent the opposite parties assisted the complainant in leading a decent life. Of course, the complainant has paid interest on the amount borrowed from the opposite parties. In all respects, compensation of Rs.10,000/- is sufficient to meet the ends of justice. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Forum below is modified to that extent.
In the result, appeal is allowed partly and thereby impugned order passed by the Forum below is modified. The appellants/opposite parties are directed to issue the termination letter and also to issue direction to the concerned RTO for the purpose of getting the hypothecation endorsement deleted from the registration certificate of the vehicle. Appellants/opposite parties are also directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- and cost of Rs.2000/-. As far as the present appeal is concerned, parties to this appeal shall suffer their respective costs.
SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER
ps
