Kerala

Idukki

CC/79/2021

Muhammadshafi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mahindra and Mahindra financial services ltd - Opp.Party(s)

25 Oct 2022

ORDER

DATE OF FILING :28.6.2021

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI

Dated this the 25^th day of October 2022

Present :

              SRI.C.SURESHKUMAR                                               PRESIDENT

              SMT.ASAMOL P.                                                          MEMBER

              SRI.AMPADY K.S.                                                        MEMBER

CC NO.79/2021

Between

Complainant                                          :  Muhammed Shafi,

                                                               Veliyathu House,

                                                               Edavetti P.O.,

                                                              Thodupuzha – 685 588.

                                                                 (By Adv. K.M. Sanu)

                                                           And

Opposite Parties                                   : 1. The Manager,

                                                                   Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Service Ltd.,

                                                                  Perumpillil Buildings,

                                                                  4 Lane Bypass Road, Vengalloor P.O.,

                                                                  Thodupuzha – 685 608.

                                                              2. Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Service Ltd.,

                                                                  Represented by

      The Branch Manager, Thodupuzha Branch,

                                                                  4 Lane Bypass Road, Vengalloor P.O.,

                                                                  Perumpillil Buildings,

                                                                  Thodupuzha – 685 608.

                                                                  (Both by Adv: Saji Augustine)

O R D E R

SRI.AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

 

Complainant raised the following allegations against opposite parties and sought for the following reliefs:-

 

1. Complainant  purchased a Mahindra Bolero Pickup Van for Rs.6,71,168/- for the purpose of earning his livelihood through self employment.  Out of the above purchase price an amount of Rs.6,35,000/- was from loan availed from opposite parties.  As per terms of loan, he had to pay Rs.337836/- as finance charge along with loan amount.  Amount of monthly instalment was Rs.15350/-.  Above vehicle was registered as KL-38G-3873.  Period of loan payment is from 05/05/2018 to 05/10/2023.  Interest was 9.6% and the principal and interest has to be paid  in 66 monthly instalments.  He had paid instalments during the initial stages.  He could not ply the vehicle due to Covid 19 situation.  He had paid 26 instalments out of 32 instalments till the filing of complaint.  He paid Rs.3,95,302/- till that time.  He had availed moratorium for 6 months during Covid 19 period and that instalments will be carried forward from the closing period.

 

2. As the future income from vehicle seem to be dull, he approached opposite parties to settle the entire dues by requesting to exempt him from payment of future interest.  But they are  not willing for the same.  They had given the loan for 13.5%.  If the interest is exempted for the period during  which the loan amount is not used, no loss will be occurred  to them.  They had charged Rs.31607/- as additional interest and Rs.3000/- towards cheque bouncing charge.  They are charging penal interest against the provisions of Interest Act.  Similarly, cheque bouncing charge levied is about 10 times more than the amount realised by banks.  He is entitled to receive the excess amount realised by them.  Above acts of opposite  parties are deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  He is entitled to claim excess charge levied by opposite parties.  He is also entitled to exemption from payment of penal interest and excess cheque bouncing charge and also for exemption from payment of future interest in respect of loan which is not utilised.

 

Hence he prayed for the following reliefs.

 

1. Direction may be issued to opposite parties to close the loan by accepting the principal amount of loan with interest  till date from the complaint and to waive from payment of future interest.

2. Direction may be issued to opposite parties to exempt from payment of penal interest and cheque bouncing charge.

3. Compensation of Rs.20,000/-(Twenty Thousand only) may be allowed  for deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and

 4. Costs Rs.10,000/- may be allowed .

 

Opposite party filed written version in the following lines.

 

1. The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on the facts of the case.  The same is a sheer abuse of the process of this Hon’ble Court, devoid of any merit.

2. The averments in the complaint are denied.  KL-38G-3873 MAHENDRA BOLERO PICK UP – Car is owned by the complainant.  He had purchased the said vehicle by availing loan from this opposite party.  As per the loan agreement entered into with the opposite party the complainant had availed a loan of Rs.635000/- from them agreeing to repay the same in 66 monthly instalments with financial charge of Rs.15350/-.  In pursuance to the said agreement money was disbursed to the complainant.  It is submitted that he had further agreed to make payment of additional finance charges in the case of default of payment of monthly instalments.  It is submitted that even though the agreement was executed and loan was availed by the complainant he had committed gross default in the repayment of the borrowed amount.

3. It is most humbly submitted that the parties to contract are bound by the terms entered into unless it is illegal.  In the agreement with the opposite party  the complainant had agreed to pay additional finance charges in case of default of instalments.  So the petitioner should not be heard to oppose the same.  It is also submitted that the opposite party is a company answerable to its share holders.

4. It is submitted that there is not even a pinch of truth in the averments made by the complaint and the complainant, it seems, had made averments as he pleases.  He had availed the loan and it is the duty of the complainant to fulfil his promises under the loan agreement with this opposite party  and he cannot wash away his hands by stating some meaningless statements before a court of law.

5. This opposite party had demanded amounts as per the loan agreement entered into.  As per the agreement in case of default of EMI the opposite party is entitled for penal interest and in case of pre closure the opposite party is entitle for pre-closure charges, and the complainant is bound to make payments of the same.  There is no unfair trade practice from the part of this opposite party and the attempt of the complainant is to avoid charge which the complainant is legally bound to pay.

So opposite party  prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

 

Complainant fled proof affidavit and examined as PW1.  Following copy of documents produced by complainant are marked as Exts.P1 to P3 as follows.

Ext.P1 – RC of vehicle No.Kl-38G-3873 Mahindra Bolero Pickup.

Ext.P2 – Account Statement as on 25/06/2021.

Ext.P3 – Account statement as on 16/05/2022.

 

Opposite party filed one document and the same is marked as Ext.R1,  Account statement as on 02/08/2022.

 

 We have examined the rival contentions of both sides, documents produced and deposition of complainant.  On a perusal of the same, following points arise for consideration.

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite  parties?

2. If so, for what reliefs the complainant is entitled to?

3. Costs of litigation.

 

Point No.1 :

 

On going through the complaint, it is seen that main prayers are that, opposite party  to accept the loan amount with interest from the complainant and to waive future interest and to exempt from payment of penal interest and cheque bouncing charge and also for compensation. In proof affidavit, he admitted that he had settled the loan on 17/11/2021 by paying Rs.4,54,600/-.  In cross examination, he admitted that he had defaulted payment of 10 instalments while 36 instalments were due.  He also admitted that as per loan agreement he had agreed to pay additional finance charge, cheque bouncing charge etc.  Again, he admitted that he had voluntarily settled the loan after institution of this complaint directly with opposite party. His another deposition is that even though, he had closed the loan before due date, opposite parties have not given any reduction in interest.  It is also stated that out of Rs.4,77,945/- opposite party had collected Rs.4,54,600/- only.  Another statement is that reduction of Rs.23,000/- given is not informed to him and added he meant that interest was recovered earlier and Rs.4,54,600/- was adjusted towards principal. It is seen from account statement that cheque were bounced 6 times for which Rs.500/- was charged for each bouncing (total Rs.3000/-) and complainant paid Rs.508/-.  Similarly, several instalments were paid belatedly for which complainant is liable to pay additional interest and cheque bouncing charge as per agreement.    Complainant didn’t take steps for production of loan agreement by opposite parties.  It s seen from account statement that moratorium for 6 months from March 2020 to August 2020 was given.

 

On going through the complaint, documents and deposition of complainant in cross  examination, it is seen that complainant  failed to establish his case.   In the above circumstances, we are of the considered view that no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice is proved in this case.  Hence point No.1 is decided against the complainant.

 

Point No.2 & 3 are considered together :

 

Since the complainant had already closed the loan voluntarily, question of granting prayer No.1 doesn’t arise at all.  Regarding second and third prayers, we have found that complainant failed to establish his case and also to prove deficiency in service.  In these circumstances, we hold that complainant is not entitled to any relief as prayed for.  Hence, point Nos.2 and 3 are also decided against the complainant.

 

In the result, complaint is dismissed as devoid of merits, however, without any order as to costs,  Interim application if any, stands disposed of.

 

          Pronounced by this Commission on this the 25^th day of October, 2022

 

                                                                                     Sd/-

SRI.AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

                                                                                     Sd/-

     SRI.C.SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

                                   Sd/-

                                                                                    SMT.ASAMOL P., MEMBER

APPENDIX

 

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1    -  Muhammed Shafi.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1    – RC of vehicle No.Kl-38G-3873 Mahindra Bolero Pickup.

Ext.P2   – Account Statement as on 25/06/2021.

Ext.P3   – Account statement as on 16/05/2022

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Ext.R1   -  Account statement as on 02/08/2022.

 

                                                                                               Forwarded by Order

 

                                                                                        ASSISTANT REGISTRAR