DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 11^th  day of July, 2023

Present  : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President

              : Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member          Date of filing: 17/08/2022                             

     CC/148/2022

Praveen Antony,

S/o Arulappan,

Silvamara Street,

Eruthempathy (PO),

Chittur Taluk

Pin – 678 681                                                                -       Complainant

(By Adv. P.Shibu)

V/s

    Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Service Ltd.,

    2^nd floor, TM.Complex,

    Chandra Nagar Branch,      

Palakkad  – 678 007                                                       -    Opposite party     (By Adv. Viju.K. Raphael)

O R D E R 

By Sri.Krishnankutty.N.K., Member

1.  Pleadings of the complainant in brief.        

      The complainant availed a vehicle loan of Rs. 6,52,813/- from the opposite party on 05.9.2018. The EMI fixed was Rs.15800/- The allegation of the complainant is that, though he was remitting the EMI’s regularly, the opposite party is threatening the complainant for repayment and trying to seize the vehicle by illegal means alleging that there are overdues,  and without giving any notice in the matter. Opposite party is not allowing to pay the EMI without clearing the overdues as per their calculation. According to him, the overdues as claimed by the opposite party is due to charging exorbitant penal charges.  Hence this complainant is filed seeking following directions.

1. The opposite party to allow the payment of EMI’s
2. The opposite party should not take possession of vehicle  by means other than legal proceedings, apart from other reliefs the Commission deemed fit.

2.     Notice was issued to the opposite party. They entered appearance. In the meantime the complainant filed IA 406/22 seeking orders to restrain the opposite party from forcefully taking possession of the vehicle. This was allowed by this Commission vide order dated 25/08/2022.

                   The Opposite party filed version refuting the allegations. According to them, the complainant is a defaulter and they are proceeding for recovering the dues through lawful means. They are also contenting that this Commission is not having jurisdiction to try this case as both the opposite parties have agreed to confer exclusive jurisdiction to Mumbai Courts, in respect of any claims or disputes arising out of the loan agreement executed, the arbitration clause in the agreement and since the loan is availed for commercial purpose.

3.     Based on the pleading of the complainant & opposite party, the following issues are framed for consideration.

1. Whether there are any statutory bar affecting the jurisdiction of this Commission like, territorial jurisdiction and commercial transaction as alleged by opposite party ?
2. Whether additional charges levied by opposite party were due to default in payment of EMI’s by the complainant ?
3. Whether the levy of charges were as per law and as per terms of agreement ?
4. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties ?
5. Whether complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed ?
6. Reliefs as to cost & compensations.

4.     The complainant did not file proof affidavit or mark any documents as evidence. The opposite party filed proof affidavit and marked Ext. B1 & B2 as evidence. Ext.B1 is the loan agreement executed by the complainant and B2 is the loan account statement.

Issue 1

5.     The complainant is a resident of Palakkad district which falls with in the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission as per Section 34 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Further as per section 100 of the CP Act, 2019 the provisions of this act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Hence there is no bar in this Commission examining the merits of this case from the point of view of deficiency in service or unfair trade practices. Since the transporting  activity undertaken by the complainant for earning a livelihood, it can’t be termed as “Commercial” Activity as per the provision of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.   

Issue 2 & 3.

6.     The complainant has not filed proof affidavit or marked any documents as evidence in the absence of which we are not in a position to adjudicate the veracity of the pleadings raised by the complainant. The opposite party’s proof affidavit clearly state that the charges collected are in accordance with the loan agreement.

Issue 4, 5 & 6

7.   So the complainant failed to point out the actions taken by the opposite party in violation of the agreement, which amounts to deficiency in service or unfair trade practice.

8.   In the absence of any evidence to establish even a prima facie case against the opposite party, the complaint is dismissed as one which lacks any merit. Hence the complainant is not entitled to any reliefs. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their respective costs.

         Pronounced in open court on this the 11^th  day of July, 2023.

Sd/-

                                                                                      Vinay Menon V

                                          President

Sd/-

                                                                         Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                 Member

APPENDIX

Documents marked from the side of the complainant: Nil

Documents marked from the side of opposite party

Ext. B1 : Loan agreement dated 30-08-2018.

Ext. B2 : Loan account statement.

Cost Witness : Nil

Cost : Nil

NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.