IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Present:
Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President
Hon’ble Mr. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
Hon’ble Mrs. Renu P. Gopalan, Member
C C No. 363/2014
Thursday, the 27th day of October, 2016.
Petitioner : Joy M.S.
S/o. Sukumaran,
Palakapurath (H),
Athirampuzha Village,
Sreekandamangalam Kara,
Kottayam.
(Adv. K.R. Ramachandran)
Vs.
Opposite Parties : 1) Mahindra & Mahindra Financial
Service Ltd. 2nd Floor,
Kaitharam Complex,
Near Mini Civil Station, Kottayam.
Rep. by its Manager.
2) Manager,
Mahindra & Mahindra Financial
Service Ltd. 2nd Floor,
Kaitharam Complex,
Near Mini Civil Station, Kottayam.
(For Op1 and 2, Adv. Dr. V.T. Rejimon)
O R D E R
Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President
The case of the complainant filed on 13/11/2014 is as follows.
The 1st opposite party is a financial institution and the 2nd opposite party is the Manager of the 1st opposite party.
The complainant on 25/03/2013 availed a loan for Rs.3,10,000/- for the purchase of a Mahindra Maximo Plus vehicle bearing Reg. No. KL-5 AG 4324. The price of the vehicle is Rs.3,72,495/- and he had spent Rs.34,000/- in addition for fixing additional sheet for platform and for barricade work. Thus the total cost of the vehicle on the road is Rs.4,06,495/-. The EMI of the loan was Rs.8,960/- and the duration of the repayment was 48 months. The total amount with interest to be paid is Rs.4,30,080/-. According to the complainant he had purchased the said vehicle as a means for his livelihood. He had remitted 11 instalments promptly, but due financial stringency he could not remit further instalments. The opposite party had took the possession of the vehicle on 24/06/2014, when 5 instalments were due. At that time the opposite party assured that the vehicle would be released as and when the dues are cleared off. While so on 06/09/2014 the complainant received a presale notice from the opposite parties informing him to clear all the dues and get back the vehicle within 7 days from the date of receipt of the notice. So on 12/09/2014 the complainant’s son approached the opposite parties with the entire dues for taking back the vehicle. But the opposite parties informed that the vehicle was already disposed off. According to the complainant, the opposite parties have no right or authority to dispose the vehicle without informing and without giving a chance for clearing the dues. The opposite parties are liable to return the vehicle by receiving the dues of the loan amount and they are also liable to pay compensation and cost. According to the complainant, the vehicle was 2013 model and the same was perfectly is sound condition and it will fetch a value least Rs.3,50,000/-. Then the complainant sent lawyers notice to the opposite parties. But there was no response from the part of the opposite parties. According to the complainant the above said acts of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence this complaint.
Opposite parties filed version contenting that the complaint is not maintainable. According to the opposite parties, the total amount payable Rs.4,30,080/- is for the genium customers, who do not violate terms of the contract. But it is not applicable to the complainant because he is a regular defaulter and such persons are liable to pay the penal charges and other charges as per the loan agreement. The complainant had surrendered the vehicle after a strong notice, which was issued due to default. According to the opposite parties, the complainant’s son was not approached them with entire dues. The opposite party sent proper and legal notice to the complainant and he did not utilize his chances and they had sold the vehicle. According to the opposite parties, there is no deficiency in services or unfair trade practice on the part of them. And they prayed for dismissal of complaint with their cost.
Points for considerations are
- Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties?
- Relief and cost?
Evidence in this case consists of the Proof affidavit of the complainant and 2nd opposite party. And the deposition of the complainant as Pw1 and Ext.A1 to A3 documents from the side of the complainant and Ext.B1 document from the side of opposite parties.
Point No.1
The crux of the complainant’s case is that opposite party had auctioned the surrendered vehicle without any notice. Complainant produced a pre sale notice dated 25/06/2014 and the same is marked as Ext.A1. Opposite party produced account statement with regards to the complainants loan account and the same is marked as Ext.B1. From Ext.B1 it can be seen that on 29/08/2014 the balance EMIs were shown credited in the account of the complainant. So the inference that can be drawn is that opposite party had sold the vehicle on 29/08/2014 and the sale proceeds were adjusted in the loan account. Even though presale notice, Ext.A1 is dated 25/06/2014, from the reverse side of the Ext.A1 it can be seen that the fact of Ext.A1 notice was intimated to the complainant by the postal authorities on 05/09/2014 and 06/09/2014. From the receipt affixed on the Ext.A1 notice it can be seen that the same was despatched by the opposite party on 04/09/2014 ie. After the sale of the complainants vehicle. Opposite party has not mentioned in the version about the details of the sale, the amount received to the opposite party by sale, date of sale etc. In our view, the above acts of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Due to the said act of opposite parties, complainant had suffered much mental pain and loss. So he is to be compensated. In our view, this kind of unfair trade practices are not good in a civilized society. A poor consumer having ambition to ply a vehicle and to earn their family approaches the financial institution like the opposite party were cheated by the new generation bank like the opposite party and the same is to be restricted. Point No. 1 is found accordingly.
Point No.2
In view of the finding in Point No.1, complaint is allowed.
In the result,
- The opposite party is ordered to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant.
- Opposite party is ordered to pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of the litigation.
The Order shall be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of Order. If not complied as directed, the award amount will carry 15% interest from the date of Order till realization.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 27th day of October, 2016.
Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President Sd/-
Hon’ble Mr. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
Hon’ble Mrs. Renu P. Gopalan, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Documents of petitioner
Ext.A1 : Presale notice dtd.25/06/2014 issued by opposite party
Ext.A2 : Copy of lawyers notice dtd.17/09/2014
Ext.A3 : Postal AD card
Ext.A4 series : Receipts issued by opposite party (7 nos.)
Ext.A5 : statement of account issued by SBI Thirunakkara branch
Documents of opposite party
Ext.B1 : Statement of account issued by opposite party
Witness
Pw1 : M.S. Joy
By Order
Senior Superintendent
