Date of filing : 26-10-2010
Date of order : 20-07-2011
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC. 222/2010
Dated this, the 20th day of July 2011
PRESENT
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER
SMT. K.G.BEENA : MEMBER
Mohammed Kunhi Kadavath, } Complainant
Bevinje, Po.Thekkil Ferry,
Chengala village, Kasaragod Taluk
( In Person)
The Manager, } Opposite party
Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd,
Near Police Station, Kasaragod
(Adv. Babuchandran. K. Kasaragod)
O R D E R
SMT.K.G.BEENA, MEMBER
Bereft of unnecessaries
The case of the complainant Sri.Mohammed Kunhi Kadavath is that he availed a loan for purchasing a Maruthi 800 vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL14E 5888 from opposite party. After repaying the entire amount with interest he approached opposite party on 29-08-2010 for a clearance certificate. But it was not issued. Therefore complainant send a registered lawyer notice to opposite party demanding clearance certificate but it was also not materialised. Hence the complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and for necessary redressal of his grievance.
2. According to the opposite party the complainant was not regular in repayment on due dates and some of the cheques issued by the complainant towards monthly repayment were dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. As per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement the complainant is liable to pay cheque return charges and additional charges at the rate of 3% per month for each defaulted EMI. The complainant paid an amount of `12,400/- on 31-08-2010. But he is further liable to pay `21,604/- being AFC. Complainant is not entitled to get the clearance certificate until clearing the entire due amount.
3. Complainant filed affidavit in lieu of chief-examination. Exts A1 and A2 marked. Ext.A1 computer receipt No.90449010169 of payment of an amount of `12,400/-. Ext.A2 is the lawyer notice dated 18-09-2010. Complainant is cross-examined by opposite party and Ext.B1 (agreement)marked. Ext.B2 is the statement of account dated 21-02-2011.
4. After considering the facts of the case the following issues were raised.
a) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
b) If so what is the relief?
5. The complainant demanded NOC on 29-08-2010 on that day the outstanding balance was `12400/- as per the complaint. In the para No.8 of the version the opposite party admits that “complainant paid the last instalment on 31-08-2010” if it was the last instalment how can they further claims additional instalments?. Whenever the complainant commits default, it is the duty of opposite party to inform the complainant that they will charge 3% AFC for each defaulted EMI, so that the customer will be vigilant in repayments monthly instalments in time. The learned counsel appeared for opposite party submitted as ruling of National Commission 2010 (1)CCC 85 (NS) to support their contention that they can claim late payment charges. (Non-issuance of NOC-petitioner/complainant took loan of `1,60,800/- from the repayments loan repaid in 4 instalments but the respondents not issued NOC State Commission found the instalments were paid late Revision petition dismissed no cost). This ruling is not applicable since the clause of the agreement executed in that case is not that of the instant one. In this case the complainant has every right to know the result of non repayment of monthly instalments. If the AFC at the rate of 3% per month has been charged for each defaulted EMI whenever he pays the EMI belatedly then he would have taken more care in repayment of monthly instalments in time. Further it was not collected whenever the complainant paid the monthly instalment subsequent to the stipulated day. A common man may not be aware of the contents of loan agreement which is printed in fine prints running to several pages within the few moments in which he is bound to execute it. The opposite party should have informed the customers when the instalment due notices were sent to them stating that they have the right to collect AFC if the monthly instalments were not paid before the due dates mentioned in the repayment charts. It is a part of the service of the Private Finance Institutions to sent notices to the customers before the due date so that customers will be prompt in repayment. In case if they did not repay in time, financiers charging AFC from customers, without informing them it in time and allowing it to accumulate till the payment of last instalment. It is not fair to charge the same from them. Obviously there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.
Considering all the above we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Hence opposite party is directed to issue clearance certificate pertaining to the vehicle belongs to the complainant bearing Reg.No.KL14/E 5888 with a cost of `3000/- within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order Failing which on application by the complainant appropriate directions will be issued to the registering authority to cancel the HP endorsement from the RC of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL.14/E 5888 stands in the name of opposite party.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts.
A1. Computer receipt for an amount of 12,400/-
A2.18-09-2010 copy of lawyer notice.
B1.Loan Agreement
B2. Statement of Account Dt. 21-02-2011.
PW1. Mohammedkunhi Kadavath.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
