IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR Present: Sri.K.Gopalan: President Smt.K.P.Preethakumari: Member Smt.M.D.Jessy: Member Dated this, the 27th day of January 2010 CC.218/2008 Subrahamannian.K. Kottayi House, P.O.Kanool,(Via)Dharmasala
(Rep. by Adv.K.K.Purushothaman Nambiar) Complainant Manager, ICICI Bank, Shaffir Complex, R.A.P.J. IVth Floor, Kannur Road, Kozhikode. (Rep. by Adv.Rajesh V Nair) Opposite party O R D E R Smt.K.P.Preethakumari, Member This is a complaint filed under section 12 of consumer protection act for an order directing the opposite party to return back the goods vehicle having registration NO.KL.592531 along with 36 blank cheque leaves with Rs.1, 00,000/- as compensation. The case of the complainant is that he is a handicapped having lack of eye sight and for his livelihood he has taken Rs.50, 000/- as loan from opposite party and purchased a goods vehicle having No.KL.592531. At the time of purchase the opposite party compelled the complainant to put his signature in agreements and some other papers and received 36 blank cheque leaves. The complainant has already paid Rs.60000/- towards the loan amount. But the opposite party has forcibly repossessed the vehicle by saying that the complainant had defaulted the payment. The complainant is using the above vehicle for transporting and selling soda for his livelihood. So due to repossession of the vehicle by opposite party, the complainant was not in a position to meet his livelihood and he has suffered lot of mental agony and financial loss. The opposite party has shown deficiency in service and hence the complainant approached the opposite party for returning the cheques and the vehicle. But the opposite party is not ready to do so. Hence this complaint. Upon receiving the notice from the Forum the opposite party appeared through Adv.Rajesh V Nair and filed their version. The opposite party admitted that the complainant had availed a loan from opposite party by executing loan cum-hypothecation agreement in favour of the bank. The loan amount availed by the complainant is Rs.1,10,000/- and out of which he has repaid only 18 installments at the rate of Rs.3651/- as E.M.I. and thereafter defaulted willfully and hence notice was issued to the complainant for repayment and even after notice he failed to pay the amount. As a result the vehicle was repossessed on 3.10.08 and the complainant has not objected the repossession. The bank has repossessed the vehicle as per the hypothecation agreement given by the complainant that the vehicle will be repossessed in default of payment. So the opposite party has not shown any deficiency of services or unfair trade practice and hence the compliant is liable to be dismissed. Upon the above pleadings the following issues have been raised for consideration. 1. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief? 3. Relief and cost. The evidence in this case consists of the oral testimony of PW1, Exts.A1 to 3 and B1. Issue Nos. 1 to 3 The opposite party admits that the complainant had availed a loan from him. The opposite party contended that the complainant had availed a loan amount of Rs.101000/- produced ext.B1 which is a computer print out the statement of account with respect to the Agreement No.LWKNR 00008240924. But the complainant deposed that “Loan No.LWKNR 00008240924 BsW¶p ]d-ªm Adn-bn-Ã. More over the opposite party admitted that the complainant had executed an H.P agreement with them. But he has not produced the same before the Forum to prove that the complainant has availed Rs.101000/- as loan. The complainant deposed before the Forum that “Bank Â\n¶p50, 000/-cq]-bmWv loan FSp-¯Xv . The Ext.B1 cannot give much weightage since it was kept by the opposite party as per their whims and fancies. But it is also true that the complainant has not produced document to prove that he has availed Rs.50, 000/-. He has produce Ext.A1 series receipts which are 6 in numbers and through which he has paid 34.490/-. So even if he had taken Rs.50000/- as loan, he had defaulted in payment of the loan. But there is no document before us to show the date of loan, the EMI, what is the balance to be paid by the complainant. But as per ext. B1 it is seen that Rs.84, 085/- was adjusted towards the due. But the complainant failed to prove that what is the actual amount to be paid by him to the opposite party. So we are not in a position to come to the conclusion that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party by repossessing the vehicle. More over the opposite party kept mum about the cheque leaves. But going through the Ext.B1 it is seen that some cheques were bounced. So with respect to the cheuqe leaf also we are in darkness. So the complainant failed to prove his case beyond doubt and hence we are of the opinion that the complaint is liable to be dismissed and order passed accordingly. In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No cost. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- President Member Member APPENDIX Exhibits for the complainant A1.Payment receipts issued by OP A2.Copy of the disability certificate of complainant A3.Copy of the letter dt.6.7.07 sent by OP Exhibits for the opposite parties B1. Copy of complainant’s Account statement maintained by OP Witness examined for the complainant PW1.Complainant Witness examined for the opposite party: Nil /forwarded by order/ Senior Superintendent Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur
......................GOPALAN.K
......................JESSY.M.D
......................PREETHAKUMARI.K.P | | 
