D.O.F:28/02/2019
D.O.O:31/03/2023
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC.44/2019
Dated this, the 31stday of March 2023
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Zuhara, aged 48 years,
Wife of late BM Aboobacker, : Complainant
R/at Depatramoola (H),
Kadambar P.O,
Manjeshwar
(Adv. Shajid Kammadam)
And
Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd,
2nd Floor, Manimunda Tower, Mangalore Road, : Opposite Party
(NH-17) Uppala- 671332,
Rep by its authorized person.
ORDER
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
The complaint filed Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act. The case of the Complainant is that he purchased a Maruthi Swift Vehicle on 20/03/2014 for Rs.5,40,000/- Reg.No is KL-14P 6673. Loan and insurance is arranged by Mahindra Financial Service (Opposite Party). On documentation, the Opposite Party obtained signature of Complainant’s husband in agreements neither explained terms nor supplied copy of the same. Loan amount is repayable in 60 EMI of Rs.13,000/-. The Opposite Party obtained blank cheques, blank singed stamp paper and basic tax receipt of the Complainant / husband misusing dominate position. Husband of the Complainant died on 25/05/2019. Though Complainant agreed to pay dues at time refused to issue no due certificate. The Opposite Party seized the vehicle on 08/02/2019 without due process of law. Personal belongings including title deed, Adhar Card, mobile charger and tools were inside the vehicle, but did not hand over. The Opposite Party is charging high interest at 36%. High interest, illegal seizer, non processer of insurance coverage amounts to unfair trade practice, deficiency in service. The complainant claimed Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation Rs.5,000/- towards personal belongings.
2. The Opposite Party filed its written version. Case of the Opposite Party is that written agreement is entered in to the parties dated on 20/03/2014. It is true that the agreement by which complainant availed loan of Rs.5,40,000/-. The amount repayable in 60 EMI at Rs.7,81,180/- total amount due as on 02/04/2019 by the Complainant is Rs.4,26,000/- after adjusting Rs.3,55,160/- paid by husband of Complainant. There is no Deficiency in Service from Opposite Party and complaint is liable to be dismissed.
3. The Complainant filed petition to amend name of the Complainant as Suhara. It is allowed. The Opposite Party produced arbitration award of 2018 but such a case is not pleaded in the written version.
4. The Complainant filed chief affidavit and Cross Examined as PW1. The Complainant filed Ext.A1 death certificate,Ext.A2 is Copy of R.Cand Ext.A3 is RBI Circular.The Opposite Party filed Ext.B1 document.
Following points arise for consideration:
- Whether there is any Deficiency in service from the Opposite Party?
- Whether complainant entitled for compensation, if so for what reliefs?
5. The Complainant admitted the loan amount of Rs.2,62,000/- in his evidence. Signing of agreement is also admitted but explained that he signed without understanding its conditions. Loan details produced also shows monthly installments and total amount payable as Rs.3,81,000/-. The Complainant also admits liability to pay the amount of loan with interest. But the Complainant disputes rate of interest. Since he has availed the loan amount, appropriated towards value of vehicle agreed to repay it with interest, the complainant is not entitled to fix the rate of interest or refuse to pay the amount legally due. The Consumer Commission is not fixing the rate of interest of loan amount advance by finances to the vehicle.
6. The Opposite Party admitted availing of loan of Rs.2,62,000/- admitted by him in his deposition, and he was required to pay the amount with interest within60 EMI. Hire purchase agreement was executed between the Complainant and the Opposite Party. The Complainant was required to pay the installments in every month as per terms and condition of Hire Purchase Agreement.
7. No specific instances of deficiency in services is pointed out by the Complainant expect seizing vehicle without notice. Changing interest agreed to by a party is not deficiency in service. The contention of the Complainant with respect to the interest rates being charged by the Opposite party on diminishing balance method do not fall within preview of Consumer Protection Act.
8. But the Complainant’s grievance is that Opposite Party seized the vehicle without prior notice or procedure known to law. Personal belongings of the Complainant left in the vehicle not returned.
9. Law is settled that illegal and forceful means cannot be adopted by banker to seize any property.
10. The Complainant’s case is that Opposite Party not followed the guidelines and thereby deprived of the vehicle and hence compensation payable. The Opposite Party admits that vehicle is within their but their case is that Complainant surrendered the vehicle but no such case in the written version. The petitioner could not place any evidence as to any notice have been given to the Complainant for seize of the vehicle nor any notice of auction of the vehicle.
11. Law is settled that illegal and forceful means cannot be adopted by banker to seize any property. Due notice had to be given for the seizure of the vehicle and following the established procedure the vehicle could be seized and vehicle was auctioned without issuing any prior notice to the Complainant. The Opposite Party which has seized the vehicle without issuing notice to a person who had borrowed money to buy the vehicle. In this regard there is deficiency in service for Opposite Party and the Complainant is entitled for compensation. The Commission hereby fix and direct the Opposite Party to pay Rs.15,000/- reasonable compensation to its borrower Complainant in the case.
12. In this result complaint is allowed in part Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) towards compensation to the Complainant payable within one month date of receipt of the order.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibit
A1: Death Certificate
A2: Copy of RC
A3: RBI Circular
B1: Arbitration
Witness Cross examined
PW1: P. Ismail
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/
