DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PALAKKAD
Dated this the 08th day of July, 2022
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya A., Member
: Sri. Krishnankutty N.K.,Member
Date of filing: 13/02/2019
CC/39/2019
Sivan K., S/o .Krishnan - Complainant
Puzhakkal House,
C.N.Puram,Palakkad- 678 005.
(By Adv.C.Sreekumar)
Vs
M/s.Mahindra & Mahindra Financial - Opposite Party
Services Ltd.,
2nd Floor,T.M Complex, Chandranagar,
Palakkad, Kerala- 678 007.
(By Adv. Viju.K.Raphael)
O R D E R
By Sri.Krishnankutty.N.K, Member
Pleadings of the complainant in brief.
1. The complainant purchased a truck with financial assistance from the opposite party. The truck bearing Registration number KL/09/Ak-6827 met with an accident at a place near Pansukara Police Station, Purba, Mednipur, Kolkatha, seriously injuring the driver and other two present in the Truck cabin. The Pansukara Police Station registered a case as Crime No. 28/2017 against the driver, Mr. Davis. The complainant registered motor accident claim as claim number 351244 for policy number 0000 0000 00 4252996 with SBI General Insurance Company Ltd and the same is yet to be settled. The allegation of the complainant against the opposite party is that they are harassing him for effecting repayment of loan, inspite of the fact that the vehicle is fully damaged in the accident and they are not even ready to share the original documents of the vehicle and account statement with the complainant. This is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
2. Notice was issued to the opposite party. They entered appearance and filed their version on 22/05/2019. Their contention is that the complainant has never informed the opposite party about the accident and related police case as also about the claim submitted to the insurance company which is a violation of the terms of the contract agreement signed by the complainant while availing the truck loan of Rs. 1950000/- on 28/10/2016. The total amount repaid by the complainant to the loan is only Rs.373700/- and the amount due as on 20/09/2019 was Rs.2429400/- When there are over dues in the loan account, they have every right to demand repayment and even to proceed legally against the complainant. They also content that the Commission lacks jurisdiction because of the Arbitration clause in the loan agreement as well as the clause conferring exclusive jurisdiction to Mumbai courts in respect of any matter, claim or dispute arising at the loan agreement .
3. On 01/02/2020 the Opposite party submitted documents related to the loan granted to the complainant along with the statement of accounts, copies of which were handed over to the complainant’s counsel against acknowledgement.
4. Neither the complainant nor the opposite party filed proof affidavit or
marked any documents in support of their arguments.
5. The complainant has been absent during most of the sittings.
Hence the complaint was taken for orders based on merit .
6. Even though the complainant filed pleadings and documents he failed to convert them in to evidence. Further he had been continuously absent. Moreover the complainant has not taken effective steps to prove his contention of deficiency in service by adducing material and relevant evidence . Hence we presume that there is no merits in the case of the complainant.
Hence the complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 8th day of July, 2022
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President.
Sd/-
Vidya A Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K
Member
