Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

262/2011

S.R.Rajasekar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd, - Opp.Party(s)

J.Kiran Kumar

11 Oct 2018

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 02.09.2011

                                                                          Date of Order : 11.10.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A., L.L.B.                                : MEMBER-I

 

C.C. No.262/2011

DATED THIS WEDNESDAY THE 11^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018

                                 

S.R. Rajasekar,

S/o. Mr. S.R. Rajagopal,

Plot No.5, 1^st Floor, 1^st Link Street,

Sadasivam Nagar,

Madipakkam,

Chennai – 600 091.                                                        .. Complainant.                                                      

 

  ..Versus..

 

The Manager,

Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd.,

Ceebros Center, 1^st Floor,

New No.39, Old No.45,

Montieth Road,

Egmore,

Chennai – 600 008.                                                    ..  Opposite party.

          

Counsel for complainant        :  Mr. J. Kiran Kumar & others

Counsel for opposite party    :  M/s. Anand & others

 

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to handover the compliant said vehicle to the complainant by obtaining the Loan Principal along with interest as on 26.06.2011 and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and unfair trade practice with cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant submits that he had availed a vehicle loan of Rs.1,78,971/- from the opposite party on 31.08.2008 for purchasing a  Maruthi Zen bearing Registration No.TN 01 X 4858.  The said loan amount shall be paid within the period of 48 months as EMI at the rate of Rs.5,432/- form 01.09.2008 to 01.09.2012.  The complainant further submits that he paid the EMIs without any default.  The complainant submits that during the month of June 2011, the complainant approached the opposite party for pre- closure of vehicle loan.  The complainant submits that on 22.06.2011, at about 04.30 p.m. after issuing telegraphic message, the opposite party repossessed the vehicle and sold the vehicle to the third party.  The complainant submits that he sent a legal notice dated:02.07.2011 to the opposite party, but the opposite party has not come forward to settle the demands of the complainant.  The act of the opposite party caused great mental agony.   Hence the complaint is filed.

2.      The brief averments in the written version filed by the  opposite party is as follows:

The opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.   The opposite party states that the complainant availed the vehicle loan for purchase of Maruthi Zen car bearing Registration No.TN 01 X 4858 to the tune of Rs.1,78,971/- and executed due vehicle loan agreement dated:31.08.2008 in favour of the opposite party and agreed to repay the same by 48 equal monthly instalments commencing from 01.10.2008.   The complainant is a chronic defaulter in payment of EMIs.   Till date of repossession the complainant had bounced 20 ECS mandate as against 36 Mandates for the “ECS Insufficient Balance”.  Thereafter, the opposite party approached the arbitrator and after passing arbitral award issued notice for repossession and sale and repossessed the vehicle from the third party.  The complainant without abiding the terms and conditions in the agreement, utilised the car by permitting the third party.  The opposite party state that the complainant has availed credit facility from Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited and committed default in payment to the tune of Rs.7,31,119.65/-.  Hence after complying due procedure, the opposite party repossessed the vehicle from the complainant and sold the vehicle on 26.07.2011 for a sum of Rs.1,35,000/-.   There is a credit of Rs.7,437/- lying in the account of the complainant.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.   Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.    To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite party is filed and documents Ex.B1 & Ex.B2 marked on the side of the opposite party.

4.      The point for consideration is:-

Whether the complainant is entitled to repossess the vehicle and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and unfair fair trade practice with cost of Rs.10,000/- as prayed for?

5.      On point:-

Both parties filed their written arguments.  Heard the Counsels also.  Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavits, documents etc.  Admittedly, the complainant had availed a vehicle loan of Rs.1,78,971/- from the opposite party on 31.08.2008 for purchasing a  Maruthi Zen Car bearing Registration No.TN 01 X 4858.  The said loan amount shall be paid within the period of 48 months as EMI at the rate of Rs.5,432/- form 01.09.2008 to 01.09.2012.  The complainant further contended that he paid the EMIs without any default.  But on a careful perusal of records, several EMIs were in default and alternative cheque payment were made in some occasions as per Ex.A1, Statement of Accounts.  Further the contention of the complainant is that during the month of June 2011, the complainant approached the opposite party for preclosure of vehicle loan.  But there is no record.   Further the contention of the complainant is that on 22.06.2011, at about 04.30 p.m. after issuing telegraphic message the opposite party repossessed the vehicle and sold the vehicle which caused great mental agony.  But on a careful perusal of records, it is seen that the opposite party after passing the arbitrary award dated:27.12.2010 as per Ex.B1, issued notice to the complainant and dispossessed the vehicle from the third party.   Further the contention of the complainant is that due to the arbitrary dispossession of the vehicle, the complainant was put to great hardship.   Hence the complainant is constrained to file this case claiming repossession  of the vehicle and compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- with cost of Rs.10,000/-.

6.     The learned Counsel for the opposite party contended that admittedly, the complainant availed the vehicle loan for purchase of Maruthi Zen car bearing Registration No.TN 01 X 4858 to the tune of Rs.1,78,971/- and executed due vehicle loan agreement dated:31.08.2008 in favour of the opposite party and agreed to repay the same by 48 equal monthly instalments commencing from 01.10.2008.   The complainant is a chronic defaulter in payment of EMIs.  20 ECS mandate as against 36 Mandates  were bounced for the “ECS Insufficient Balance”.  Thereafter, the opposite party approached the arbitrator and after passing arbitral award issued notice for repossession and sale and repossessed the vehicle from the third party.  The complainant without abiding the terms and conditions in the agreement, utilised the car by permitting the third party.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  Further the contention of the opposite party is that the complainant has availed credit facility from Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited and committed default in payment to the tune of Rs.7,31,119.65/-.  Hence after complying due procedure, the opposite party repossessed the vehicle from the complainant and sold the vehicle on 26.07.2011 for a sum of Rs.1,35,000/-.   There is a credit of Rs.7,437/- lying  in the account of the complainant.   There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that the complaint has to be dismissed.

In the result, this complaint is dismissed.   No costs.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 11^th day of October 2018. 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANTS’ SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1	31.08.2008	Copy of Statement of Accounts issued by the opposite party to the complainant
Ex.A2	22.06.2011	Copy of Telegram received by the complainant from the opposite party
Ex.A3	02.07.2011	Copy of legal notice issued by the complainant’s Counsel to the opposite party
Ex.A4	05.07.2011	Copy of acknowledgement card for the receipt of the above legal notice

 

OPPOSITE  PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS: 

Ex.B1	27.12.2010	Copy of Arbitral Award
Ex.B2	29.07.2011	Copy of Post sale notice by the opposite party with the copy of courier receipt

 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT