By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:
 

The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

The complaint in brief is as follows:- The Complainant purchased a Goods Auto Rickshaw No. KL 12D 187 under finance of the 1^st Opposite Party of Rs.1,14,000/-. Loan was granted to the Complainant on receiving blank loan agreement forms unfilled pronotes and bonds with blank papers the two guaranteers were also to be signed. Apart from that the Opposite Party received from the Complainant 10 blank signed cheques of the Wayanad District Co operative Bank numbered in between 880331 to 880340. The equated monthly instalments fixed for the instalments was Rs.3,760/- which were to be paid in 47 months. The vehicle was registered at the Regional Transport Office, Wayanad. The original R.C. Book and spare key were kept in custody of the Opposite Party. The Complainant paid 14 monthly instalments and the payments amount to Rs.37,600 towards the loan. The vehicle was seized by the Opposite Party when the delay in payment effected and the vehicle was sold in auction. The price at which the vehicle was sold in the particular auction was not informed to the Complainant even after realization of the amount selling the vehicle . The Opposite Parties are making threat to the Complainant to derive huge amount illegally. The documents which were collected by the Opposite Party were not given back. The Complainant's attempt to settle the dispute with the Opposite Party could not make any result hence there may be an order directing the Opposite Party to stop the entire proceedings against the guaranteers with respect to the liability of the transaction. The Opposite Parties are to be directed to return the unfilled pronote, bonds and blank papers and to give back 10 blank and signed cheques numbers 880331 to 880340 along with cost and compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the Complainant.

2. The 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties filed version in short it is as follows:- The dispute with respect to the purchase of the vehicle is still under adjudication before the Arbitration Tribunal. The complaint filed is suppressing these facts. The loan agreement entered in to by the Complainant with the Opposite Parties already agreed that if any dispute or differences arises concerning the liability of the vehicle it is to be left for the decision of the arbitrator. The arbitrator is the competent authority to redress the grievances. The Opposite Parties had not received any blank papers or signed blank cheques as averred in the complaint. The original Registration Certificate and spare key were kept in custody of the Opposite Party instead the Complainant was given only the photocopy of the Registration Certificate are absolutely false. The amount claimed by the Complainant in remittance is incorrect. The vehicle was surrendered to the Opposite Party when it found to be difficult for the repayment of the loan amount. The allegation of the Complainant that there were several attempts on his side to settle the dispute but the Opposite Parties were not ready to bent towards it are nothing but false. The vehicle purchased by the Complainant was for commercial purposes and that itself is a ground for dismissal of the complaint. The complaint is to be dismissed with cost to the Opposite Parties.

3. The points in consideration are:-

1. Whether any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties in the vehicle transaction?

2. Relief and cost.

4. Points No.1 and 2:- The evidence in this case consists of the proof affidavit of the Complainant and Opposite Parties. The Complainant and Opposite Parties rendered oral testimony in this case. Exts.A1 to A4 and B1 to B5 are the documents considered in this matter.

5. The allegation of the complainant is that the vehicle was seized by the financier without proper notice and it was sold without informing the Complainant. The contract date of the vehicle was on 07.09.2007 which was repossessed on 19.11.2008. The vehicle was disposed on 12.12.2008. The disposal of assets Ext.B5 produced on the side of the Opposite Party shows that altogether 17 instalments were due from the Complainant out of which 10 equated monthly instalments were remitted. The payments of the Complainant towards the EMI is Rs.37,600/-. The disposal amount of the vehicle after 14 months from the date of purchase according to the Opposite Party is 56,000/-. The preclosure amount estimated by the Opposite Party is Rs.1,23,276/- which includes repossession charges, parking charges and other charges which are not detailed. In the oral testimony of the Opposite Party and Complainant witness the deserving price of the vehicle is in between Rs. 90,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/-. The price of the vehicle sold according to the Opposite Party is Rs.56,000/- which does not hit the actual price of the vehicle. According to the Opposite Party the balance amount due from the Complainant is Rs.67,276/-. The preclosure amount is as Rs. 1,23,276/-. The selling price of the vehicle is to be considered Rs.95,000/-. The Opposite Party sold the vehicle at a lessor price of Rs. 56,000/-. The actual price deserving for the vehicle is 95,000/-. The preclosure amount is to be considered as Rs.1,15,000/- deducting the actual amount desirable for the vehicle sold Rs.20,000/- can be considered as the outstanding amount liable to be paid by the Complainant. It is also seen from the oral testimony of the witnesses that the vehicle was in good condition when it was seized with respect to the production of cheque leafs blank and signed and other documents no substantial evidence is brought out.

In the result the complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties are directed to absolve the Complainant from any liability with respect to the transaction of the vehicle No. KL 12D 187 on receipt of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only). This is to be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order. There is no order as to cost and compensation.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 29^th July 2010.

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

A P P E N D I X

Witnesses for the Complainant:

PW1. Sajir. Complainant.

Witnesses for the Opposite Parties:

OPW1. Suneesh Peter. Officer, Mahindra Finance.

OPW2. K.B. Biju Driver.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1. Copy of Certificate of Registration.

A2. Copy of Receipt. dt:12.11.2008.

A3. Copy of Notice. dt:23.11.2009.

A4. Reply Notice. dt:04.12.2009.

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:

B1. Copy of Power of Attorney.

B2 series Copy of Letter and Postal Receipts.

B3 series. Copy of Letter and Postal Receipts. dt:16.12.2008.

B4. Copy of Letter. dt:10.08.2009.

B5. Copy of Disposal of Assets.