IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 29th day of July, 2022
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 194/2020 (filed on 30-11-2020)
Petitioner : Rahul Saseendran,
Anil Vilas,
Anjilithanam P.O.
Thiruvalla, Pathanamthitta,
Pin - 689582
Vs.
Opposite Parties : 1) Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.
Kanaka Damodaran Building,
Opp. International Hotel,
Veekshanam Road, Kochi,
Kerala – 682035.
2) Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.
Ground Floor, Cherukara Tower,
Collectorate P.O.
Kottayam – 686001.
3) Safeer C.K.
Senior Manager, (Recovery)
Kotak Mahindra Bank.
Kanaka Damodar Building,
Opp. International Hotel,
Veekshanam Road,
Kerala – 682035.
( For Op1 to 3, Adv. Jeejan T)
O R D E R
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
The case is filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The brief of the complaint is as follow.
The complainant had availed a vehicle loan from the Kotak Mahindra Bank for the Mahindra Bolero Maxi Pick up van on 04-03-2019. The cost of the vehicle was Rs.6,26,363/-. The complainant had given a down payment of Rs.1,13,000/- and loan was granted for Rs.5,13,440/-. The complainant repaid Rs.31,000/- being the instalments for March and April, 2019. Thereafter, the complainant was having financial difficulties and the complainant was not able to remit the monthly payments of the loan. The complainant had requested for time upto December for the repayment of the loan. But on 20-10-2020, the opposite parties men had repossessed the vehicle. On enquiry with the opposite party bank, they demanded Rs.7,34,098/-. The opposite party bank was not ready for a partial payment of the dues. Apart from the monthly instalments, they have charged Rs.1,30,195/- as additional financial charges and Rs.35,257/- as the legal repossession fee. The complainant fear that if the full amount is not received on sale by auction of the vehicle by the opposite parties, they may take steps to recover the balance amount from the complainant. The act of the opposite parties is unfair trade practice. Hence this complaint is filed for getting reliefs.
On admission of the complaint, copy of the complaint was duly served to the opposite parties. Even though the opposite parties represented, they failed to file their version. The complainant failed to file the proof affidavit or to adduce evidence to establish the case. The documents filed along with the complaint were marked as Exts.A1 to Ext.A4.
On the basis of the complaint and evidence on record, we would like to consider the following points.
- Whether there is unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties?
- If so, what are the reliefs and costs?
For the sake of convenience, we would like to consider Point No.1 and 2 together.
On the basis of the complaint and evidence on record, it is clear that the complainant is the owner of the vehicle with Reg. No.KL-27-J-252 Mahindra Bolero Maxi Tuck Pickup Van with hypothecation to Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Cochin. Ext.A1 is the copy of RC book of the vehicle No.KL-27-J-252. The name of owner is Rahul Saseendran and hypothecation / hire purchase / lease agreement with effect from 05-03-2019 to Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Cochin. Ext.A2 is the quotation / proforma invoice dated 12-02-2019 which shows that the cost of the Mahindra Bolero Maxi Truck is Rs.6,26,363/-. Ext.A3 is the post repossession notice issued by opposite party Kotak Mahindra Bank to the complainant informing that the opposite party had taken possession of the vehicle KL-27-J-252 as per the agreement No.LCU-1220518 on 01-03-2014 and the total outstanding amount payable is Rs.7,34,098.44/-
From the above discussed evidence, it is clear that the opposite party Kotak Mahindra Bank had taken repossession of the vehicle No,KL-27 J-252 of the complainant legally as the complainant failed to pay the contractual dues and the repossession of the vehicle was duly intimated to the complainant. The complainant had not adduced any evidence to prove unfair trade practice as per the Consumer Protection Act on the part of the opposite parties. Thus Point No.1 and 2 are not found infavour of the complainant. The case is dismissed.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 29th day of July, 2022
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
mt. Bindhu R. Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1 – Copy of RC book (KL-27-J-252)
A2 – Copy of quotation / proforma invoice dtd.12-02-2019 issued by TVS
A3 - Copy of repossession notice issued by opposite party Kotak Mahindra Bank
to the complainant
A4 – Copy of reply letter to petitioner by opposite party
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
Nil
By Order
Assistant Registrar
