KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO.91/2011
JUDGMENT DATED 31.8.2011
PRESENT
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT
SHRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR -- MEMBER
The Manager,
Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd.
2nd Floor, Kunnaruvath Building,
North Kottachery, Kanhangad, -- APPELLANT
Kasaragod.
(By Adv.Narayan.R)
Vs.
K.Subrahmanyan,
S/0 Raman, Kunnummal House,
Meladukam, Pullor.P.O, -- RESPONDENT
Kasaragod.
(By Adv.S.Ajith)
JUDGMENT
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT
The appellants are the opposite parties/Financiers in CC 19/10 in the file of CDRF, Kasaragod. The appellants are under orders to refund a sum of Rs.1,26,000/- towards the amount spent for the vehicle and also to pay compensation of Rs.30,000/- and cost of Rs.3,000/- with interest at 12% on Rs.1,26,000/-.
2. It is the case of the complainant that he had availed a loan of Rs.2.2 lakh in December 2009 for the purchase of a goods carriage lorry. He also remitted 11,500/- on 8.12.09 and 9,500/- on 4.1.10. It is alleged that on 31.12.10 the vehicle was forcibly repossessed by the opposite parties.
3. It is the case of the complainant that he had not defaulted any instalment at the time of repossession. According to him, he had spent Rs. 1 lakh for purchasing the vehicle. He has sought for return of the vehicle and payment of Rs.1000/- per day till the date of delivery towards loss.
4. It is the case of the opposite parties that the complainant had defaulted repayment and that the complainant had in fact surrendered the vehicle. It is mentioned in the letter handed over on 31.12.09 that he is surrendering the vehicle voluntarily. It is also mentioned therein that there was some misunderstanding between the complainant and the sureties which is the reason for surrendering the vehicle.
5. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, DW1, Exts.A1 to A3, B1 and B3.
6. The Forum has found that the vehicle was forcibly repossessed and not surrendered. It was also found that the complainant had remitted the monthly instalments and that the vehicle was repossessed despite the fact that the complainant had remitted the due instalments. It is pertinent to note that the loan was availed in December 2009 and the vehicle has been allegedly repossessed on 31.12.09. The complainant had remitted Rs. 11,500/- on 8.12.09 and Rs.8,500/- on 4.1.10 the later dated being subsequent to the alleged date of repossession. To substantiate the contention that the complainant had surrendered the vehicle due to the mis-understanding between the complainant and the sureties the opposite parties have not produced the above letter said to have been executed by the complainant.
7. There was no representation for the respondent/complainant before this Commission.
8. The counsel for the appellant has stressed the fact that there is no evidence produced to support the contention that the complainant had spent Rs.1,26,000/- which has been allowed by the Forum. We find that the case of the complainant as mentioned in the complaint is that he has spent Rs.1 lakh for making the vehicle roadworthy and paid Rs.20,000/- towards the loan. The payment of Rs.20,000/- is evidenced by Exts.A1 and A2 receipts. Hence, it is contended that there is no justification for awarding Rs.1,26,000/-. It is only for the proof affidavit that the complainant has mentioned that he has spent only Rs. 26,000/- for insuring the vehicle. The particular documents have not been produced. We find that there is no evidence as to establish that he has spent Rs.1 lakh for making the vehicle roadworthy. It appears that the vehicle purchased was not a new one. The circumstances would indicate that the vehicle was not surrendered by the complainant but repossessed by the opposite party. The opposite parties/appellants could not provide any convincing explanation for repossessing the vehicle soon after providing the finance despite the fact that the complainant has remitted the monthly dues. Perhaps it is on account of the high handed action on the part of the opposite parties that the Forum has allowed the amounts as well as compensation which appears to be on the higher side.
9. In the circumstances, we find that the amounts to be paid as ordered by the Forum requires to be modified although we find that there is no illegality in the finding of the Forum that the vehicle was repossessed without sufficient reasons. In the circumstances, the order of the Forum below is modified to the effect that the opposite parties/appellants shall pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- as compensation to the complainant. The complainant will return the RC book of the vehicle to the opposite parties and execute the necessary documents for transfer of the vehicle. The compensation shall be remitted within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order. The Forum shall permit the complainant to withdraw the amount only on returning the RC book of the vehicle and executing the necessary documents for transfer of the vehicle. If the amount is not remitted in time, the complainant will be entitled for interest at 12% from 31.8.11 in the date of this order.
10. The office will forward the LCR along with the copy of this order to the Forum below urgently.
In the result, appeal is allowed in part as above.
JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT
S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR -- MEMBER
