Kerala

Idukki

CC/136/2017

Sasi Achary - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager Golden Autos - Opp.Party(s)

Adv.K M Sanu

23 Jun 2022

ORDER

DATE OF FILING :29.6.2017

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI

Dated this the  23^rd  day of  June, 2022

Present :

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR                   PRESIDENT

SMT. ASAMOL P.                             MEMBER

SRI. AMPADY K.S.                           MEMBER

CC NO.136/2017

Between

Complainant                                           :     Shashi Muthu Achari,

                                                                   Charuvila Puthen Veedu,

                                                                   Sanyasiyoda P.O.,

                                                                   Balagram, Idukki.

 (By Adv:  K.M. Sanu)

And

Opposite Parties                                     :  1.  The Manager,

                                                                     Golden Automobiles,   

                                                                     Sangeetha Junction, Kattappana,

                                                                      Kattappana P.O., Idukki.

       2.  The Manager,

  TVS Credit Service Ltd.,

  Manson Arcase, Opp. Lenin Centre,

  Kaloor, Ernakulam.

       3.  Aneesh Ponnappan,

                                                                      Executive,                                                                                                                       TVS Credit Service Ltd.,

  Manson Arcase, Opp. Lenin Centre,

  Kaloor, Ernakulam.

 (2&3 By Advs: Suresh Kumar

& Babichen V. Geroge)

O R D E R

 

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

1. This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the Act, for short).  Case of complainant is briefly discussed hereunder :      

                                                                                               

Complainant had purchased a TVS Apache RTR 160 motor cycle, bearing Reg. No.KL-69-7275 from 1^st opposite party, a dealer of TVS, in the first week of June, 2015                                                                                                                                 (cont….2)

• 2  -

 

for a total consideration of Rs.88,000/-, out of which he had paid Rs.34,000/- from his own funds and taken a loan of Rs.59,000/- from 2^nd opposite party for payment of balance consideration and incidental expenses.  Loan was to be repaid in 36 equated monthly instalments of Rs.2423/-.  1^st instalment was paid in advance as demanded by opposite party.  Complainant was regularly paying the instalments.  While so, after payment of instalment due in November, 2016, his wife had to be taken to Thiruvananthapuram Medical College hospital for treatment.  Considerable amount was expended by complainant for the treatment of his wife.  When complainant had come home from Thiruvananthapuram, in February  2017, as he was facing scarcity of fund to pay for his wife’s treatment expenses, 3^rd opposite party had come there and informed him that Rs.9511/- was due towards loan repayment.  Under the pretext  of getting acknowledgment regarding intimation of loan arrears, 3^rdopposite party obtained signature of complainant in intimation regarding fault, 3^rd opposite party had deceitfully taken his signature in a paper.  Thereafter he had taken the bike from the complainant misinforming him that this was for checking its condition and had left with the vehicle.  It was only then that the complainant realized that opposite party had, by trickery, taken possession of motor cycle.  When complainant had gone to the office of 2^nd opposite party to make enquiries, staff there were not even prepared to talk with him.  According to complainant, there were only arrears of 2 instalments, of December 2016 and January 2017 respectively, when the vehicle was seized.  If the advance instalment is deducted, it could be seen that there were no arrears warranting seizure of the vehicle.  No notice was given to complainant regarding seizure of motor cycle.  He has not received any intimation that the vehicle was being put to auction or that it was sold in auction.  Some days afterwards, complainant had received information over phone demanding its RC Book.  He was only informed by the caller that he purchased the motor cycle from 2^nd opposite party for Rs.35,000/-.  Complainant submits that the vehicle was sold at very low price.  Value shown in the insurance policy of the vehicle relating to the year 2016-17 was Rs.54,727/-.  Actual market price was much higher than value shown in the policy.  Complainant submits that he had not surrendered the vehicle.  It was illegally taken possession of, by opposite parties 2 and 3.  Complainant had not received any information or intimation seeking payment of arrears or auctioning of vehicle.  It was seized at the time when there were no arrears warranting a seizure.  Hence complainant prays for a declaration to set aside auction and a direction against opposite parties for return of the motor cycle to him upon condition that remaining instlaments are  paid regularly.  He also seeks payment of Rs.75,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties along with Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. 

                                                                                                        (cont….3)

 

-  3  -

2.  First opposite party had filed written version, contending that he has been unauthorisedly dragged into this litigation.  His contentions are briefly discussed hereunder :

 

First opposite party submits that complainant had purchased a motor cycle of the brand TVS Apache RTR 160 from him.  However, he would say that complainant had paid only Rs.33,000/- towards total price of the bike which was Rs.87,000/- and not Rs.88,000/- as stated in the complaint.  For the balance he had requested for a vehicle loan and therefore 1^st opposite party had introduced him to 2^nd opposite party.  It was 2^nd opposite party, who had arranged the loan.  Complainant had availed the same after duly signing  necessary documents in favour of 2^ndopposite party.  1^st opposite party is not aware of the transaction entered into between complainant and 2^nd opposite party.  Rs.33,000/- paid initially by complainant,  includes  service charges, one term vehicle tax, registration charges, cost of accessories and 1^st monthly instalment of loan.  Vehicle was promptly delivered by 1^st opposite party to complainant.  There is no deficiency in service on its part.  There is no privity of contract between complainant and 1st opposite party.  He is not a necessary party.  Reliefs are  sought only against 2^nd and 3^rd opposite party.  Hence complaint is to be dismissed against him with costs. 

 

3.  Second and 3^rd opposite parties have filed a joint written version.  Their contentions are briefly discussed here under  :

 

Complaint is not maintainable either upon facts or in law.  Complainant had availed a loan for purchase of a motor cycle and  executed a loan-cum-hypothecation agreement on 15.6.2015 as borrower, one of the terms of which provided for arbitration.  Hence disputes any, with regard to loan transaction, possession of vehicle etc. are to be referred to an Arbitrator as mentioned in Clause 24 of the agreement.  That being so, complaint is not maintainable and hence is liable to be dismissed.  Without prejudice to this contention, 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties further submit that as per the loan agreement, an amount of Rs.59,000/- was financed by 2^nd opposite party.  Complainant had agreed to pay a total amount of Rs.82,044/- towards contract value.  This amount was to be repaid in 36 equated monthly instalments beginning from 7^th July, 2015 and ending by 7.5.2018, each instalments being of Rs.2279/-.  2^nd opposite party had given advance insurance amount of Rs.3,456/- to complainant which was to be repaid in monthly instalments of Rs.144/- for 24 months.  Total monthly instalment payable will come to Rs.2423/-.  1^st month instalment was collected in advance.  After availing loan, complainant had violated the terms of loan agreement.  He had evaded payment of loan instalments. Complainant was highly irregular in paying instalments due.  There were defaults even                                                                                                                             (cont…4)

• 4  -

after repeated reminders.  It is incorrect to say that 3^rd opposite party had deceitfully taken possession of motor cycle after fraudulently obtaining signature of complainant in a paper in February 2017.  On the contrary, complainant had informed 2^nd opposite party that he was financially unstable and therefore wanted to surrender the vehicle as he was unable to pay further instalments.  That his strained financial condition was owing to his wife’s hospitalization.  As informed by him, opposite party had approached him and thereafter complainant had surrendered the vehicle on 28.2.2017.  Complainant had also issued a surrender letter duly signed by him to opposite party.  At the time of surrender, 3 instalments for the months of October 2016, December 2016 and February 2017 were in arrears.  Earlier a cheque issued towards payment of instalment had bounced and its collection charges were also due from complainant.  It is incorrect to say that no notice was issued to complainant regarding arrears or with regard to putting up of the vehicle for sale in auction.  Loan recall notice was issued to complainant on 23.12.2016 which was received by him.  A pre-sale notice was issued to complainant on 2.3.2017.  Thereafter motor cycle was  sold in public e-auction for Rs.28,000/-.  After sale of vehicle, post-sale notice was issued to complainant informing him about the sale and demanding Rs.12332/- which were due from him after setting off sale amount.  It is incorrect to say that the vehicle was sold below market price and that it would have fetched more.  Sale of motor cycle was by public auction and best price available for the vehicle was received.  Opposite party has not acted against interests of complainant.  On the contrary, it was complainant, who had violated the terms of agreement and put the 2^nd opposite party in loss. Allegations in the complaint are false and baseless.  Complainant is not entitled for the reliefs prayed for in the complaint and same is to be dismissed with costs.

 

4.  After filing of written version, case was posted for evidence after affording sufficient opportunity to both sides to take steps.  No oral evidence was tendered by complainant.  6 documents produced by him were marked as Exts.P1 to P6.  On the side of respondents, its authorized person was examined as RW1 and Exts.R1 to R13 were marked.  Thereafter evidence was closed and both sides were heard.  Now the points which arise for consideration are :

1) Whether complaint is maintainable ?

2) Whether 1^st opposite party is necessary or formal party ?

3) Whether opposite party had deceitfully taken possession of motor cycle from

    complainant after obtaining signature of complainant in Ext.R4, by

    misrepresentation ?

4) Whether there was a proper public auction of motor cycle ?

5) Whether there was any deficiency in service from the side of 2^nd and 3^rd opposite

    Parties ?

                                                                                                          (cont….5)

-  5  -

6) Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for as against opposite

Parties?

7) Final order and costs ?

 

5. Point Nos.1 to 6 are considered together for the sake of convenience :

 

          Learned counsel for complainant would submit that possession of motor cycle was taken by 3^rd opposite party by fraud and misrepresentation.  Seizure was against law.  In fact, there were no arrears justifying seizure, as could be seen from the evidence tendered by RW1 during cross examination.  In box, RW1 admitted that arrears were of 2 months.  That being so, even if there were to be any default, it was only for one month.  Hence opposite party No.2 was not entitled to take possession of the vehicle.  Taking unlawful possession of vehicle without there being arrears justifying the same, is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 2 and 3.  3^rd opposite party at that time was an employee of 2^nd opposite party and therefore both are liable for the acts  of 3^rd opposite party, 3^rd opposite party in person and 2^nd opposite party, vicariously.  There was no public auction for the sale of vehicle.  Admittedly, RW1 has no direct knowledge about loan transaction and subsequent auction conducted by opposite party, purportedly, by 2^nd opposite party.  Ext.R13 is not sufficient evidence that the vehicle was sold in public auction.  Therefore 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties are legally bound to return motor cycle to complainant and pay compensation for  deficiency in service as claimed in the complaint.  Complainant is prepared to resume payment of monthly instalments due upon getting possession of the vehicle, eventhough there is delay. 

 

          No arguments were advanced from the side of 1^stopposite party.  Counsel for 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties instead would submit that 1^st opposite party was not a necessary party to this litigation.  Able counsel would further argue that complaint itself is not maintainable in  view of arbitration clause contained in Ext.R3 loan agreement.  Complainant has no case that he had not voluntarily signed Ext.R3.  That being so, terms of agreement are binding upon him.  If at all, there is any dispute with regard to payment of instalments or taking possession of vehicle by 2^nd opposite party, complaint should file his claim before the arbitrator, as per the arbitration clause in Ext.R3, instead of filing a complaint of this nature. 

 

          It is further contended that admittedly there are arrears in payment of loan instalments.  Hence as per Ext.R3, 2^nd opposite party was right in taking possession of the vehicle even if it is presumed that possession of vehicle was taken by 3^rd opposite party  for and on behalf of 2^nd opposite party.  In the present case, complainant himself has                                                                                                                     (cont…6)

• 6  -

surrendered the motor cycle as he was unable to pay future instalments, leaving  apart arrears due, owing to his wife’s hospitalization.  He himself had informed  2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties, accordingly.  It was at his request that 3^rd opposite party gone to his residence on the fateful day and collected the motor cycle from him, which was voluntarily surrendered.  In witness there of, complainant had voluntarily given a surrender note signed by him, copy of which is admitted as Ext.R4.  On the basis of Ext.R4, complainant cannot argue that vehicle was taken forcible possession of by 3^rd opposite party.   No police complaint was lodged by complainant regarding unlawful seizure of vehicle or for obtaining his signature deceitfully in Ext.R4.  These contentions are now raised only to evade legal responsibility and liability to pay excess charges of Rs.12,332/-, which is   due from complainant after adjusting sale proceeds.  Repeated notices and reminders were issued to complainant for payment of arrears.  Pre-auction and post-auction intimation were given to him.  It is incorrect to say that complainant had not received any notice with regard to payment of arrears or about public auction conducted for the vehicle.  Auction was conducted at e-platform, after observing necessary formalities as could be seen from Ext.R13.  The person who placed highest bid for the motor cycle was declared to have successfully bid for bike for the quoted price.  A sum of Rs.28,000/- was received from the said person and vehicle was given to him.  Thereafter Ext.P6 intimation was given for surrender of R.C..  Complainant had instead of surrendering R.C., filed this case to avoid payment of excess amount and also to pressurize opposite party in coming to a settlement.  Complainant is not entitled to get any of the reliefs and complaint is to be dismissed with costs.

 

          Thus, these are the rival contentions.  As far as contentions advanced with regard to maintainability of the complaint are concerned, we are of the considered view that there is no bar of  jurisdiction.  As per Section 3 of the Act, provisions therein are in addition to those in other enactments.  In this context, decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in  Rosedale Developers Private Ltd. Vs. Aghore Bhattacharya and Other (2018 (II) SCC 337) and also in National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Vs. M. Madhusudan Reddy and Another, (2012 KHC 4034) are very much relevant.  Complainant had not opted for arbitration.  He had filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service as against opposite parties 1 to 3,  under Section 12 of the Act.    Therefore, in the light of decisions mentioned supra, contentions that complaint is not maintainable on account of there being an arbitration clause in the loan agreement are only to be repelled and we do so.  Complaint is maintainable as against opposite parties 2 and 3.

 

                                                                                                                   (cont….7)

 

 

• 7  -

          In so far as 1^st opposite party is concerned, even going by complaint averments, complainant had only purchased the bike from him.  Deficiency in service is alleged with regard to unauthorized seizure of motor cycle by 3^rd opposite party and alleged sale of vehicle without conducting a public auction.  These contentions are advanced on the basis of the loan transaction entered into between complainant and 2^nd opposite party.  3^rd opposite party is the person / employee of 2^nd opposite party, who had taken unauthorized possession of vehicle, going by the complaint averments.  There is not even a whisper of allegation with regard to deficiency in service or defects in goods delivered from the side of 1^st opposite party.  He was dragged into this litigation only for the reason that complainant had purchased a motor cycle from him.  Considering complaint averments and also evidence tendered by complainant, we are of the view that 1^stopposite party was neither a necessary or formal party to this litigation.  Therefore, complaint is not maintainable against 1^st opposite party as complainant has no cause of action against him.

 

          Coming to the question of arrears and alleged siezure of vehicle, it is pertinent to note that complainant has not entered the box and given evidence with regard to the alleged misconduct of 3^rd opposite party in deceitfully seizing motor cycle and fraudulently obtaining signature of the complainant in Ext.R4 surrender form.  It was for the complainant to give evidence regarding these matters; in the absence of any evidence in support of these pleadings,2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties are not under any obligation to tender contra evidence. For the very same reason evidence of RW1 even if not considered as direct in this regard, will not be of any harm to 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties.  A contention was advanced that complainant was illiterate and unable to read, write and understand English.  This contention remains as a contention, that too without any merits.  It is seen from Ext.R3, which is the loan agreement, that same is printed in English and it has been signed by complainant along with his wife who was a co-borrower.  Both have put their signatures in English.  Ext.R2 is copy of loan application given by complainant and his wife.  It is seen filled up in English and signed by complainant and his wife in English.  Exts.R2 and R3 are not in challenge even during cross examination of RW1. It was for the complainant to prove that despite all these, he was unable to understand the contents thereof or of R4. He has not done so. Therefore, contentions of complainant that he was unable to read and write English and hence was not aware what was mentioned in R4 are only to be repelled.  Ext.R4 is a printed form upon which complainant is seen to have affixed his signature.  He has not taken any steps to prosecute opposite parties  for unauthorized seizure of the vehicle by obtaining signature in Ext.R4 fraudulently in criminal courts by filing complaints before police or court.  That apart, as mentioned earlier, complainant has not given evidence that the vehicle was deceitfully taken or that signatures were fraudulently obtained in Ext.R4.  That being so, case of opposite parties

                                                                                                                   (cont….8)

 

• 8  -

2 and 3 that complainant himself has surrendered the vehicle due to inability to pay future instalments, is reliable and provable. 

 

          As far as seizure is concerned, it is admitted by the complainant that there were arrears and this was due to hospitalization of wife of the complainant.  It is true that in evidence, RW1 has deposed of there being arrears only of 2 months, which after deduction of advance instalment paid would come to one. However as per clause 13.3 of loan agreement, opposite party is entitled to take possession of vehicle, if any amount is due from complainant, be it one instalment amount or any sum lesser than that.  There is nothing in Ext.R3 to support the contentions advanced from the side of complainant that vehicle could be taken possession of, only if there were to be 2 or more instalments remaining unpaid.  However, we have already found that  case of opposite parties 2 and 3 that complainant had voluntarily surrendered motor cycle and given Ext.R4 surrender note is believable and therefore is to be taken as proved.  Hence further contentions advanced by complainant in this regard are only to be repelled. 

R5 to R8 would go to show that notices demanding arrears, informing the complainant that vehicle will be auctioned in case of non-payment were sent to him before auction. Pre auction notice sent to correct address of complainant, as it was sent to same address to which R6 was sent,  was retuned unserved. Hence contentions that no notices were sent to complainant before sale are without any merits whatsoever. 

 

Coming to the question of sale of vehicle, clause 20.1(e) in Ex.R3 gives the flexibility of sale either by auction or private sale or other means of disposal to 2^nd O.P. However, as O.P.2 had chosen to sell the vehicle by public auction, it was incumbent upon him to see that all measures were taken to make the auction public and  that vehicle fetches the best possible price. Evidence tendered from the side of 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties is not sufficient to prove that there was e- auction of motor cycle.  Opposite  parties 2 and 3 have no case that auction notice was published in office notice board of 2^nd opposite party or in any newspaper dailies with  website address of 2^nd opposite party.  Without giving website address and details of vehicle in a pre auction public notice, no prospective  purchaser will come to know about proposed e-auction.  Opposite parties 2 and 3 have no case that before auction, vehicle was examined by a motor cycle appraiser and its condition was ascertained.  Neither was it’s market value ascertained or published, or any reserve price fixed and published.    As far as Ext.R13 is concerned, these are  print outs of e-mail communications between Residual Management (Girish Kumar) at Ernakulam and similar management (Ramachandran G.) at Chennai,  of  2^nd  opposite party. Communication from Girish Kumar contains entries regarding sale of motor cycle        

                                                                                                          (cont….9)            

• 9  -

surrendered by complainant and of another one with details of bids received from 2 bidders.  This communication is seen approved by the management at Chennai.  Ext.R13 is not sufficient evidence to show that the motor cycle surrendered by complainant was sold in a proper public or in  e-auction.  We have  already outlined necessary formalities which are to be complied before conducting auction, these are not seen complied with. Going by the contents of Ext.R13, the print out does not contain  acknowledgement of successful bidders containing their digital or written signatures.  Ext.R13 does not appear to us as one pertaining to public auction of vehicle on the terms outlined by us.  Sale if at all done, was done clandestinely and this will certainly amount to deficiency in service.

 

          According to 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties, vehicle had fetched a maximum price of Rs.28,000/-. Ex. P1 shows that motor cycle was purchased in 2015 by the complainant from 1^st opposite party. Total consideration was Rs.87,000/-, (on road price) as per written version of 1^st opposite party. He has also contended that complainant has made down payment of Rs.33,000/- and not Rs34,000/- as stated in complaint. P3 series copies of receipts produced by complainant are for Rs.33,000/- in total. Invoice of vehicle was not produced. Hence we are of the view that written version of 1^st opposite party is more reliable in this regard. On road price of motor vehicle was  Rs.87,000/-.    The only evidence from the side of complainant with regard to market  price of the motor cycle at the time of e-auction conducted, purportedly, is Ext.P2, which is a copy of insurance policy pertaining to the vehicle for the year 2016-17.  As per Ext.P2 policy, the vehicle is seen valued at Rs.54727/- by insurer.  Vehicle was manufactured in May 2015 as per P1, thus a 2015 model. It was a three year old model when sold in 2018. Hence contentions that it would have fetched a price above Rs.54,727/- shown in P2 can only be wistful thinking of complainant and nothing near to market price prevailing. There are no materials on record regarding condition of vehicle at the time of sale. Considering the fact that it was more powerful than commuter bikes of 100 C.C or 110 C.C. capacity, it would require more fuel than those bikes which are of low engine capacity. Consequently  this  would make it unsuitable, economy wise, for daily commuters looking for bikes which consume less fuel. Yet we do not think that market price of such a three year old model bike will be as low as Rs.28,000/-.  Considering all these aspects, and the fact  that the vehicle was in running  condition with necessary accessories upon a fair estimate, giving 15% depreciation for each year for three years and also giving a margin to the fact that sale was in distress, we would estimate fairly that it would have fetched a price of Rs.45,850/- at the time of sale by 2^nd opposite party.

 

          Admittedly, complainant had not paid any future instalments.  Case of complainant that the vehicle should be returned to him as it was not sold in a public auction and that      

                                                                                                                   (cont….10)

 

• 10  -

he would be ready to retain the same after paying future instalments cannot be considered in the light of the fact that he had defaulted  payment of instalments.  Thereafter he had cooked up a case that the vehicle was deceitfully seized by 3^rd opposite party.  However, we are of the view that complainant was entitled to receive balance amount if any, after adjusting arrears.  According to 2^nd opposite party, amount due from the complainant was Rs.28,000/- obtained as sale consideration for the motor cycle + 12332 as incidental charges.  During cross examination of Rw1, quantum of excess charges claimed was not challenged as incorrect or unreasonable. The only other document produced to prove charges which have  accumulated along with arrears is Ext.R10 print out of statement of account.  It is in very small print and unreadable.  Therefore, we are not considering the same.  Yet, in view of the fact that quantum of excess charges is not challenged, we find that 2^nd opposite party is entitled to get Rs.28,000/- + 12,332/-, being admitted extra charges due.  28,000 + Rs.12,332/- would come to Rs.40,332/-, the total amount which 2^nd opposite party is entitled to get from complainant.  We have found that vehicle would have fetched Rs.45,850/- in public sale. There would be an excess of Rs.7518/- remaining after adjusting amounts due to 2^nd opposite party, which is payable to complainant. Complainant will be entitled to receive the same with interest at the rate of 13% per annum, which is the rate seen charged in Ext.P3 payment schedule.  As mentioned earlier there is deficiency in service on the part of O.P.2 in not selling the vehicle in a public auction. Considering all circumstances, we are of the view that a sum of Rs.5,000/- would suffix as compensation for the same.  For these reasons we find that case will have to be dismissed  against O.P.1 and 3 and partly allowed as against O.P.2.

 

No acts of omission and commission were proved against O.P.3. O.P.1 was unnecessarily dragged into this litigation. O.P.1 and 3 will be entitled for litigation costs payable by complainant and so will be the complainant for his costs from O.P.2. Point Nos.1 to 6 are answered accordingly. 

 

6.  Point No.7 :

 

          In the result :

1) Case  against 1^stand 3^rdopposite parties is hereby dismissed, with costs, under the circumstances,  set at Rs.5,000/- each payable by complainant.

 

2)  Complaint is allowed in part as against O.P.2 upon following terms :

(a) Opposite party No.2 shall pay a sum of Rs.7518/-/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of 13% per annum from the date of filing of this petition which is 29.6.2017, until

                                                                                                                   (cont…11)

-  11  -

realization.  2^nd opposite party shall also pay Rs.5000/- as compensation to the complainant for deficiency in service, with same rate of interest from date of petition till date of payment or realization as the case may be.  He shall also pay Rs.5000/- as litigation cost to complainant.

 

(b)  Amounts ordered above shall be paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.  In case of non-payment, parties concerned shall be at liberty to realize the amounts due to them as per law.

 

                   Pronounced by this Commission, on this the   23^rd  day of June, 2022

 

 

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

 

SMT. ASAMOL P. , MEMBER

 

 

SRI. AMPADY K.S. , MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                                                          (cont...12)

• 12  -

 

APPENDIX

 

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

Nil.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

RW1      -  Prasanth P.

RW2      -  Jithin Varghese.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1    -  Copy of RC.

Ext.P2    -  Copy of insurance policy.

Ext.P3    -  Copy of repayment schedule.

Ext.P4    -  Copy of cash receipts – 3 Nos.

Ext.P5    -  Letter issued by opposite party to complainant.

Ext.P6    -  Fresh Registration Certificate of the vehicle.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Ext.R1    -  authorisation letter issued by opposite party. 

Ext.R2    -  loan details of complainant. 

Ext.R3    -  loan cum hypothecation agreement.

Ext.R4    -  vehicle surrender letter.

Ext.R5    -  notice issued by opposite party.

Ext.R6    -  loan recall notice.

Ext.R7    -  pre-sale notice.

Ext.R8    -  pre-sale notice.

Ext.R9    -  letter issued by opposite party to complainant demanding balance payment.

Ext.R10  -  statement of account.

Ext.R11  -  extract of resolution.

Ext.R12  -  letter of authorisation by legal head of opposite party.

Ext.R13  -  print out of e-mail communication among opposite parties.