KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

 APPEAL   NO. 445/11

                               JUDGMENT  DATED: 23.06.2012

PRESENT:

SHRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR                    : MEMBER

1.         The General Manager,

Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd.,

Admin. Office No.101-105,

Shiv Chambers, 1^st floor, B-Wing,

Sector-II, CBD Belapur,

Navi Mumbai-400 614.

2.         Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd.,

R/by SBU Head, 4^th Floor,

Capitol Centre, Opp. Secretariat,                       : APPELLANTS

M.G.Road, Trivandrum.

3.         Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd.,

R/by its Branch Manager,

Nandiyathu Plaza, College Junction,

Pathanamthitta.

(By Adv: Sri.Narayan.R)

            Vs.

K. Sadasivan Pillai, S/o Krishna Pillai,

Kannanghat House, Kaippuzha Muri,              : RESPONDENT

Kulanada Village, Pathanamthitta.

JUDGMENT

SHRI.S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER

This appeal is filed by the opposite parties in CC.174/09 before the CDRF, Pathanamthitta who are aggrieved by the directions to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.65,840/- with compensation of Rs.5000/- and to issue clearance certificate to the complainant to enable him to make necessary changes in the concerned RTO failing which they are liable to pay a further sum of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant.

2.      The complainant had approached the Forum stating that he had entered into a hire purchase agreement with the 3^rd opposite party and received Rs.7,50,000/- as loan. As per the agreement the complainant had to pay Rs.8,96,875/- including the finance charges of Rs.1,46,875/-.  The said amount had to be repaid within 48 monthly instalments and that the complainant had to pay Rs.93,000/- to the opposite parties as insurance charges.  The complainants case is that he had paid Rs.7,55,785/- as monthly charges without any default and that on 8.8.2008 he transferred the vehicle to one Prithipal and had remitted Rs.3.lakhs to the opposite parties.  He had also paid Rs.14,500/- as insurance charges and the complainant had submitted that he had paid Rs.10,70,285/- in total.  The complainant had alleged that the opposite parties had recovered an amount of Rs.80,410/- in excess which was unlawful and also that even after remitting the whole amount the opposite parties were not ready to hand over the papers for transferring the ownership in the RTO.

3.      The opposite parties in their version contended that the complainant had not remitted the full amount entitled to the opposite parties and that the opposite parties could not give a clearance certificate since the due amount was not paid by the complainant to the opposite parties.  It is their case that the complaint is not maintainable and they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with cost.

 4.     The evidence consisted of the oral testimony of the complainant as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A3 on his side.  On the side of the opposite parties, the 3^rd opposite party was examined as DW1 and Exts.B1 was marked on the side of the opposite parties.

5.      Heard both sides.

6.      The learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties vehemently argued before us that the order of the Forum below directing the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.65,840/- with compensation and direction to give the necessary papers cannot be sustained on the ground that from Ext.B1 statement it is clear that the complainant is liable to pay more amount to the opposite parties so as to enable them to give the termination letter and other papers to be produced before the concerned RTO.  He has also a case that the opposite parties had only acted as per the agreement and the Forum’s directions are without any jurisdiction.  The learned counsel invited our attention to the fact that the complainant had taken over the loan availed by another person viz. Omar Farooq and the said Omar Farooq was a necessary party in the proceedings.  It is also his case that the Forum below ought to have dismissed the complaint in-limine on the ground that the complaint is for settlement of accounts.

7.      On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant supported the findings and conclusions of the Forum below.  It is submitted by him that the Forum below has passed the order after proper appreciation of each and every aspect of the case.  The Forum below has also reduced the amount since it was found that the complainant was liable to pay the insurance amount of Rs.14,570/- and only the balance amount is directed to be refunded to the complainant.  He has also the case that the Forum below ought to have allowed more compensation as no interest was ordered for the amount remitted by the complainant long back.  He has submitted that it was great deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in not giving termination of hypothecation letter and other required papers enabling the complainant to make necessary changes in the concerned RTO.  Pleading for the position that the appeal is only to be dismissed with compensatory costs, the learned counsel argued before us that the order of the Forum below is liable to be confirmed.

8.      After having heard both sides and also on perusing the records it is found that both the complainant and opposite parties have not disputed that the complainant had remitted total sum of Rs.10,70,285/-.  The complainant’s case is that the opposite parties have collected Rs.80,410/- in excess (Rs.10,70,285/- - Rs.9,89,875).  The Forum below has found that the complainant was liable to pay Rs.14,570/- towards insurance and has deducted the same from the said amount of Rs.80,410/-.  Thus, we find that the direction of the Forum below to refund Rs.65,840/- is correct and hence justified.  However since no interest is ordered the Forum has directed to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation to he complainant which seems to be reasonable.

9.      Regarding the other aspects of issuing the clearance certificate and necessary papers to the complainant to enable him to make necessary changes in the concerned RTO, we find that such directions are tenable in the facts and circumstances of the case.  However the direction to pay Rs.50,000/- in the event of failure to comply with the above direction seems to be on a higher side.  It is felt that a sum of Rs.25,000/- would be just and proper to meet the ends of justice if the opposite parties fail to issue the clearance certificate and other papers to the complainant to enable him to make the necessary changes in the concerned RTO.  It is also found that the interest rate already is on the higher side.  It would be reasonable that the opposite parties are liable to pay interest at 9% only from the date of default till payment.

In the result the appeal is allowed in part with the above modifications thereby the opposite parties are directed to return the excess amount of Rs.65,840/- with compensation of Rs.5000/- and issue the clearance certificate and other papers to the complainant to enable him to make necessary changes in the concerned RTO failing which the opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant and also that the opposite parties are liable to pay interest at 9% per annum from the date of default as contained in the order of the Forum below till the date of payment.

In the facts and circumstances of the present appeal parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

Office will forward the LCR along with a copy of this order to the Forum.

S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR  : MEMBER

VL.