KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No.  124/12

JUDGMENT DATED 26.11.2012

PRESENT:-

SMT. A. RADHA                                :    MEMBER

SHRI. K. CHANDRADAS NADAR    :    JUDICIAL MEMBER

APPELLANT

M/s. Sriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd.,

Mookampika Complex No.4,

Lady Desika Road, Mylapure, Chennai,

Rep. by Power of Attorney Holder,

Arun M. Asst. Branch Manager, Pathanamthitta

                (Rep. by Sri. Adv. Pramod Chandran & C.S. Raj Mohan)

                            Vs

RESPONDENTS

1.    K.P.  Mohammed Ali,

     S/o Abdu Haji,Kinattingal Pattani House,

    Porur, Wandoor, Malapppuram District.

2.    Aseez,

     Proprietor, Safa Auto Consulatant, Pulikkal P.O.

3.    Ratan Motors,

     No.9 Triveliyan Basin

Street. Sowcarpet, Chennai – 79.

4.    Regional Transport Officer,

Regional Transport Office, Malappuram

                          (R1 Rep. by Sri.  Adv. S. Ajith & others )

JUDGMENT

SMT. A. RADHA :    MEMBER

          Aggrieved by the order passed by the CDRF, Malappuram in C.C. No. 32/2010, this appeal is preferred by the opposite party.  The Forum below partly allowed the complaint and directed to pay an amount of Rs.12,000/- as additional interest for the defaulted instalments to the 4^th opposite party  within 15 days from the date of the receipt of the order and  also directed the 4^th opposite party  to issue the Higher Purchase Termination Letter and No Objection  Certificate to the complainant.

          2.  The complainant availed a loan for Rs. 3lakhs under Hire Purchase agreement on 24.3.06.  The loan amount had to be paid in 30 monthly installments from 24.4.2006 to 24.8.2008 @ 13,000/- per month.,  The complainant approached the second opposite party through first O.P to issue Hire Purchase Termination letter from the second opposite party.  It is the allegation of the complainant that the opposite parties demanded extra amount apart from the chart amount.  On non issuance of the hire purchase termination letter the complainant issued lawyer notice. The complainant suffered heavy financial loss, mental agony and hence filed this complaint.

          3.  The appellant was impleaded as additional 4^th opposite party since the second opposite party was the franchisee of the 4^th opposite party. 

4.  The Hire Purchase Agreement was with the 4^th opposite party.  The first opposite party filed version contending that the complainant availed hire purchase facility for  purchasing a vehicle for commercial purpose.  It is also contended that the complainant was not having licence or badge to drive the goods vehicle.  The complainant is not a consumer under C.P. Act. It is admitted that the first opposite party is only  an agent of the second opposite party and introduced the complainant to get finance facility. It is contended that  on the part of the first opposite party there is no deficiency in service and no relief can be claimed by the complainant from the first opposite party. The second opposite party remained ex-parte.  The 3^rd opposite party is the Regional Transport Officer who issued the Registration Certificate of the alleged vehicle.

          5.  The 4^th opposite party admitted in the version that the vehicle loan was issued to the complainant on 24.3.2006 for an amount of Rs. 3lakhs.  The finance charge was Rs. 1,12,500/- and the total agreed value comes to Rs. 4,12,500/-  It is also contended that no consumer relationship between the complainant and the 4^th opposite party  and does  not come under the purview of Consumer Protection Act.  Hire purchase agreement with respect to the alleged vehicle was with the 4^th opposite party.  It is also contended that the 4^th opposite party had not demanded any extra amount apart from the chart amount.  The complainant was a chronic defaulter.  Out of the total  amount the complainant paid only Rs.2,52,000/- in 18 installments as on 1.12.2010.      It is also stated that an amount of Rs.1,60,500/- was due out of the agreed monthly installments.  The complainant failed to remit the loan amount on the stipulated date as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement.  It is also contended that the 4^th opposite party is the owner of the vehicle and is eligible to retain the vehicle’s ownership until the whole amount is recovered from the complainant.  The complainant suppressed the material facts.  The opposite party was ready to terminate the hypothecation as and when the complainant repays the entire amount to the 4^th opposite party.   As per the terms of agreement the arbitrator is the deciding authority and the loan agreement provisions are governed upon the parties. The complainant defaulted the amount and there is no justification in finding fault with the financiers.   It is also contended that the complaint is to be dismissed with compensatory cost as the complainant had not come with clean hands.

          6.  No oral evidence adduced by both parties and filed affidavits and  documents in evidence.  Exts A1 to A4 were marked on the side of the complainant and Exts. B1 and B2 were marked on behalf of the opposite parties.  On appreciation of the evidence on records, the Forum below partly allowed the complaint.

          7. The appellant/4^thopposite party submitted that the respondent was a chronic defaulter and he paid only 18 installments out of the 30 installments.  An amount of Rs. 2,07,125/- was due towards the balance amount of loan account along with its overdue charges till 24.9.08.   The 4^th respondent is the owner of the vehicle as the complainant had not paid the loan amount in full.  Unless and until the satisfaction of the loan amount the lien of ownership of the 4^th opposite party will subsist.  The appellant/4^th respondent was ready to issue the Non Objection Certificate and release the hire purchase agreement on payment of the balance amount.  The counsel also submitted that the A3 series which were submitted by the complainant were disputed as the said amount was not paid in favour of the 4^th opposite party.  He also pointed out that  a huge foreclosure penalty, principal amount outstanding and arrears were due to the appellant towards the loan amount.  The parties are bound by the terms of agreement  and it is  evidenced by ‘Ext. B1 that the respondent agreed to pay the loan amount as per the agreement.  The total amount due to the appellant came to Rs.3,91,188/- and the appellant/4^th opposite party was ready to issue the non liability certificate on discharging the loan amount.

          8. Refuting the contentions made by the counsel for the appellant, the first respondent/complainant‘s counsel submitted that the respondent remitted an amount of Rs. 4,20,000/- in total.,  which is more than the agreed amount as per the loan agreement.  The complainant remitted the amount in excess.  Evenafter the  remittance in excess the appellant/4^th opposite party was  not ready to issue the N,O.C and was persuading the 1^st respondent/complainant to deposit Rs.3,91,188/- As per the respondent he had already paid Rs.14,000/- in 30 installments and produced the remittance slips.    The respondent issued the lawyer notice as the whole amount was paid by the respondent and the appellant is liable to issue the non objection certificate for the hire purchase termination.

          9.  Heard both parties in detail.   On going through the documents it is seen that the respondent/complainant paid 14,000/- each in 22 installments and 28,000/- each in 4 installments. It comes to an amount of Rs. 4,20,000/-  It is to be pointed out that though the complainant paid the amount in excess of the total loan account,  the loan period was from 26.4.2006 to 24.8.2008.  The respondent paid an amount of Rs. 4,20,000/-  in total as on 17.8.2009 ie. during   26.4.2006 to 24.6.2009.  It is clear from evidence that the complainant paid the entire amount with default. The appellant/4^th opposite party entered into the agreement for an amount of 3lakhs which had to be paid with finance charges Rs. 4,12,500/-  The finance charges are calculated for the entire amount of

Rs. 3lakhs.  Further the delay in payment of the installments the appellants are charging default charges.  As per the respondent he had remitted in excess of loan amount with finance charges.  We have to point out that the appellant had defaulted the remittance  towards the  loan account.

          10. The respondent had already remitted Rs. 3,92,000/- as on 24.8.2008 and the balance amount due was only Rs. 20,500/- as per chart amount  and the respondent paid a total amount of Rs. 4,20,000/- as on 17.08.2009.  Nothing is on record  to prove that the loan amount or financial charges were due to the appellant.  It is true that there is default in payment.  In the instant case, the respondent remitted the entire amount of loan amount with financial charges.  Moreover there is excess amount remitted   on the part of the appellant.  We find the order passed the Forum Below   to pay

Rs. 12,000 as additional interest for the defaulted installments to the opposite party is just and proper and we find no ground to interfere with the impugned order.

In the result, appeal is dismissed upholding the order passed by the Forum below.

The office is directed to send the copy of the order to the Forum below with L.C.R.

                                                      A. RADHA  ;  MEMBER

                               K. CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMB ER

st