KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMIISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No 652/2011
JUDGMENT DATED : 11.05.2012
PRESENT
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
APPELLANT
1. Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd.,
2nd Floor, Hassan Arcade, Opp. R.T. Office, Kannur
2. N.V. Diyesh, Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd.,
2nd Floor, Hassan Arcade, Opp. R.T. Office, Kannur.
( Rep. by Adv. Narayan R.)
Vs
RESPONDENT
K. Latha
W/o N.V. Sreedharan Nedumba
P.O., Valiya Poyil, Kasargod District.
( Rep. by Adv. T.V. Rajendran & others)
JUDGMENT
SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Kasargod in C.C. No. 43/2010 dated 24.8.2011. The appellants are the opposite parties and the respondent is the complainant in the above C.C. This order prefers under the direction of the Forum below that the Forum below direct to the opposite party No. 1 to pay Rs. 73,000/- to the complainant with a cost of Rs. 3,000/- The date of comply the order is 30days from the date of receipt of the order failing which the opposite party No. 1 shall be able to pay interest @12% for the said amount Rs. 73,000/- from the date of the complaint.
2. In short, the complainant availed a loan for this Bajaj Goods Auto. He purchased this for Rs. 1,06,000/- during May, 2007. This amount is repayable in 36monthly instalments. According to the complainant he was very prompt in repayment. Yet on 25.6.2009, second opposite party together with two others deputed by the opposite party No. 1 forcebly taken away the said vehicle. Hence the complaint.
3. The opposite parties contended that the complainant was not regular in repayment and he surrendered the vehicle on 14.07.2009, but the spare tire and battery of the vehicle were removed. According to the opposite parties the complainant is trying to coerce the opposite parties for a monitory bargain and to escape from actual liabilities.
4. The evidence consisted of the oral testimony of the complainant, Pw1 and examined one witness by the opposite party as Pw1. Documents marked by the complainant as Exbt. A1 series and A2 the opposite parties marked documents Ext. B1 to B9.
5. The Forum below raised 2 main issues:
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2) If so, what is the relief?
6. The Forum below discussed the entire points and taken a view that the loan amount in 36 monthly installments. Here the complainant had paid 27 installments andthe last installment is Rs. 3,680/- Here the complainant has to pay 8 installments Amount of the vehicle is Rs. 1,12,950/- The actual loss suffered by the complainant as to be compensated adequately since she lost the vehicle as well as the E.M.Is he remitted . According to the opposite parties there is a balance of Rs. 41,481/- towards the payment of monthly E.M. I.s. The complainant is liable to pay the said amount. Hence the said amount can be deducted from the IDV of the vehicle for calculating the loss(1,12,950- 41,481= 71,469) On this view the Forum below passed the above impugned order.
7. On this day this appeal came before this Commission for final hearing the counsel for the appellant and respondent/complainant argued the case vehemently. The counsel for the appellant argued the appeal on the grounds of appeal memorandum that the order passed by the Forum is not accordance with the strict consideration of the evidence adduced by appellant/opposite parties. He submitted that the complainant is a chronic defaulter he paid the installments not promptly. It is delayed payment. He suppressed material fact that for default of payment he is entitled to pay penal interest if considering this aspect he assessed his total amount of payment. It is false and not legally sustainable. It is submitted that the vehicle is 2007 model. But the cost assessed by the surveyor at the time of the sale of the vehicle the amount assessed as Rs. 1,12,950/- is very high which is an old vehicle and which is used for transporting the ways for providing pig farm. At the very same time the counsel for the respondent/complainant argued that the amount ordered by the Forum below is reasonable and the order is legally sustainable. He submitted that he paid the entire installments and he is compelled to pay one more installments Rs. 3,681/- The vehicle was hypothecated to the opposite parties even they forcibly taken the vehicle and they sold the vehicle as per their will and pleasure. It is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. They did not follow the strict provisions of the law. The Counsel for the respondents/complainant prays to dismiss the appeal and to confirm the order passed by the Forum below.
8. This Commission heard in detail and perused the entire evidence available in the case records. We are seeing that the opposite party did not examine the witness such as officer to maintain Ext. A1, Ext. A2 and also Ext. B2 and B3. There is no explanation from their part to forcibly taken the vehicle from the lawful custody of the respondent/complainant. From the very same time we are seeing that the complainant failed to remit the E.M.I. within a due date. He suppressed such an omission before the Forum below. The Forum below assessed the amount I. D.V. value of the vehicle is not legally sustainable. The vehicle is 2007 model. The market value of this vehicle is maximum of Rs. 60,000/-after the deduction of the balance amount of E.M.I. Rs. 41,481/- is 18,619. The complainant is legally entitled to get only 18,619/- We are seeing that the above modification of the order passed by the Forum below is highly necessary for the interest of justice. How the Forum below valued an old goods autorikshaw for an amount of I.D.V. value Rs. 1,12,950/- It is not legally sustainable.
In the result this appeal is allowed in part and modified the result portion of the order passed by the Forum, below. The first opposite party is direct to pay Rs. 18,619/- with an interest @12% from the date of the complaint to the complainant. It also directed the first opposite party to pay Rs. 2,500/- as compensation to the complainant and if failing which the opposite party No. 1 shall be liable to pay an amount of Rs. 73,000/- with an interest @ 12% from the date of the complaint. The points of the appeal discussed one by one and answered accordingly. No cost ordered.
M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
ST
