Kerala

StateCommission

A/15/853

RAJESH - Complainant(s)

Versus

MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA FINANCE - Opp.Party(s)

SUJA MADHAV

06 Jul 2018

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION  VAZHU THACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NO.853/15

 

JUDGMENT DATED:06.07.2018

PRESENT : 

HON’BLE JUSTICE SHRI.S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN     : PRESIDENT

SHRI. T.S.P MOOSATH                                             : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SHRI. RANJIT. R                                                         : MEMBER

 

Rajesh, S/o Rajan,

Thinnakkathodiyil, Kattayad,

Thovarimala Post,                                                              : APPELLANT

Sulthan Bathery, Wayanad.

 

(By Adv: Smt. Suja Madhav)

 

            Vs.

 

Mahindra & Mahindra Finance,

2.  

Chulliyode Road, Sulthan Bathery.

 

 

JUDGMENT 

 

SHRI. RANJIT.R : MEMBER

The appeal is filed by the complainant against the order dated, 17.6.2015  passed by CDRF, Wayanadu, Kalpetta  (for short the District Forum) by which the complaint  was dismissed by the Forum.

The case of the complainant is that he has purchased a Tata Indica Vista Car on availing a loan of Rs.3,83,000/- sanctioned by the opposite party.  As per the loan agreement the complainant has to repay the amount in 48 instalments from 6^th April 2011 onwards.  Immediately after the delivery of the vehicle opposite parties started demanded the instalments, and the complainant could not register the vehicle. The opposite party repossessed the vehicle.  Thereafter the opposite party did not accept the instalments from the complainant.  The opposite party then issued a notice to the complainant demanding balance amount, and threatened that they will sell the vehicle.  Thereafter the complainant informed his willingness to remit the amount and take back the vehicle.  But the opposite party denied the same.  Opposite party had left the vehicle in open yard without any protection.  Value of the vehicle has considerably diminished and hence he filed the complaint alleging deficiency of service by the opposite party.  Opposite party resisted the complaint filing version.  In the version it contended that the vehicle purchased is for commercial purpose and there is a clause for arbitration under which the Forum has no jurisdiction.  The loan agreement was executed on 6.4.2011 and the instalment became due on 5^th day of every month.   If the amount is not paid the delayed period of payment attracted additional finance charges.  So far the complainant has paid only one instalment ie on 29.6.2011.  Since the complainant has continuously defaulted payment of instalments the opposite party send notice to the complainant for making the payment.  Then the complainant surrendered his vehicle by himself promising to clear the dues within 45 days.  Opposite party never repossessed the vehicle.  Complainant permitted the opposite party to dispose the vehicle and promised to return the documents pertaining to the vehicle.  The vehicle was put in auction and the bid was confirmed infavour of one Mr. Abhilash.K.K, which later was cancelled.  Contending there was no deficiency on their part they prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

Evidence consisted of the testimony of complainant’s father as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A3 on the side of the complainant.  Commission report was exhibited as C1.  On the side of the opposite party, their Manager was examined as OPW1 and Exts.B1 to B3 marked.

The District Forum  analyzing the entire evidence found that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and dismissed the complaint.

Aggrieved by the order present appeal is filed.

Heard both sides and perused the records.

The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the opposite party had repossessed the vehicle from the complainant in violation of terms and conditions of the loan agreement, and that the complainant was compelled by the opposite party to write Ext.B2 letter showing his willingness to surrender the vehicle on his volition.  In Ext.B2 letter it is stated that the complainant himself has voluntarily handed over the vehicle to the opposite party stating that he will take back the vehicle within 45 days.  The other contention is that the vehicle was a brand new one and not even registered and on repossession of the vehicle by the opposite party it was kept in the open yard without any protection, thereby diminishing the value of the vehicle.

The father of the complainant was examined on behalf of the complainant as PW1.  He has deposed that the complainant had defaulted payment of monthly instalments and he voluntarily surrendered the vehicle to the opposite party promising to clear the dues within 45 days.  It is admitted that the complainant had paid only one instalment and thereafter due to financial constraint he failed to repay the loan amount.  The contention now raised by the appellant is that Ext.B2 letter given by the complainant was under force.  It is to be noted that nothing has been stated against Ext.B2 letter by the complainant either in the complaint or in the affidavit filed in lieu of chief examination.  We do not find any force in the contention now raised by the appellant that Ext.B2 letter was given by the complainant was under force.  When a person availed a loan and agreed to repay it in instalments, he is bound to repay it as per terms and conditions of the loan agreement.  The complainant did not take any action when he received Ext.A1 resale notice. He also did not act upon Ext.B2 document.  The complainant has failed to comply with his obligation under the loan agreement with the opposite party.

Non registration of vehicle is not due to the fault of the opposite party.  The financier is entitled to get the loan amount as per the loan agreement.  Admittedly there is default in payment of loan amount.  Hence as per the loan agreement the financier is at liberty to repossess the vehicle.   Here, the complainant himself has surrendered the vehicle due to financial constraint.  The complainant has failed to prove any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.  There is no violation of any terms and conditions 0n the part of  the opposite party.

On analyzing the entire evidence, the Forum has rightly held that there is no deficiency of service on the side of the opposite party and dismissed the complaint.  Based on the above discussion, we do not find any irregularity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the District Forum.

In the result appeal is dismissed.  Parties to suffer their respective costs.

 

JUSTICE S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN     : PRESIDENT

 

T.S.P MOOSATH  : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

RANJIT. R  : MEMBER

 

VL.