Kerala

Idukki

CC/192/2017

Anil B Aanandu - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager Sree Ram Capital - Opp.Party(s)

17 Dec 2021

ORDER

DATE OF FILING :18.9.2017

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION IDUKKI

Dated this the 17^th day of December, 2021

Present :

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR PRESIDENT

SMT. ASAMOL P. MEMBER

SRI. AMPADY K.S. MEMBER

CC NO.192/2017

Between

Complainant : Anil B. Anand, S/o. Sadanandan,

Anitha Bhavan,

Edayaranmula P.O.,

Pathanamthitta – 689 531.

Now residing at

Erappoozhickal House,

Perumpillichira P.O., Thoudpuzha.

Represented by

Power of Attorney holder

Bibin, S/o. Subrahmanian,

Puthusserikunnel House,

Avoili P.O., Muvattupuzha.

(By Adv: Sooraj S. Sivan)

And

Opposite Parties : 1. The Manager,

Shriram Equipment

Finance Company Ltd.,

Anand Tower, V.R.M. Road,

Ravipuram, Kochi – 682 016.

2. The Branch Manager,

Shriram Equipment

Finance Company Ltd.,

Nanthiyath Plaza, College Junction,

Adoor Road,

Pathanmthitta – 689 645

(By Adv: Gem Korason)

 

 

 

(cont.....2)

 

• 2 -

O R D E R

SMT. ASAMOL. P., MEMBER

 

Facts of complaint are as follows :-

 

1. Complainant purchased a J.S. Hydrolic excavator for the purpose of earning his livelihood from one Mr. Sajin Joy for Rs.15,25,000/- on 30.1.2014. For purchasing the machine, he availed a loan of Rs.15,25,000/- from opposite parties. As per the terms and conditions of loan, complainant had to repay the amount of Rs.17,79,861/- including interest with 24 monthly instalments. Accordingly, complainant had totally paid Rs.16,80,000/- with 25 instalments, till the period of 11.3.2016. Therefore, complainant approached opposite parties with balance amount of Rs.99,861/- for closing this loan account. But 2^nd opposite party did not receive the above said amount. Moreover, he said to complainant that now the closing amount is Rs.5,10,822/- and this amount should be paid immediately otherwise, they would take possession of this vehicle.

 

2. Actually, complainant has to give only Rs.99,861/- as due amount. But opposite parties are demanding exorbitant penal interest unlawfully.

 

3. Complainant is ready to pay the actual amount of Rs.99,861/-. But, opposite parties acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, this complaint and he prayed for following reliefs :

a. opposite parties may be directed to receive Rs.99,861/- from complainant and to issue ‘NOC’.

b. opposite parties may be directed to stop the revenue recovery proceedings until closing of loan account.

c. opposite parties may be directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- as cost of the case proceedings.

 

4. Commission served notice to opposite parties. Upon notice, opposite parties have entered appearance and filed detailed written version. Contentions of opposite parties are in briefly as follows :

 

5. Opposite parties deny all the averments except those that are specifically admitted hereunder. According to opposite parties, complainant availed loan for his vehicle from them under an agreement. As per the agreement, an amount of Rs.17,79,861/- including interest is to be repaid by complainant in 24 monthly instalments. But complainant did not properly remit instalments and became a defaulter.

(cont….3)

• 3 -

 

6. Complainant and his guarantors have duly signed and executed the loan agreement. The contention of the complainant that there was prompt payment in his loan account is not correct. He was a gross defaulter and he did not make any payment in stipulated period as per the terms of agreement. The interest rate was specifically stated in agreement and the instalment was scheduled accordingly. Therefore, complainant is liable to pay overdue charges for delayed payment and opposite parties are entitled for the same. There is no illegality in the proceedings initiated for the recovery of the loan. There is no cause of action against these opposite parties to this complainant. Hence this complaint may be dismissed with compensatory cost to these opposite parties.

 

7. Opposite parties have additionally submitted that as per the terms of agreement, if there are any disputes between complainant and opposite parties, it has to be referred to the Arbitrator.

 

8. Complainant has not adduced oral evidence, but he has produced 3 documents. These were marked as Exts.P1 to P3 series. Ext.P1 is sale agreement, Ext.P2 is statement of account and Ext.P3(series) are loan receipts. So many chances were given to complainant for adducing evidence. Opposite parties also have not adduced any evidence though from 2018 onwards, case was posted for settlement upon request by parties. Thus, so many chances were given for settlement. Accordingly, complainant and opposite parties have submitted that ‘matter is settled’. But they did not file any memo as the matter is settled and also it was not undertaken by them. Hence it was again posted for evidence. Again, many chances were given for adducing evidence. But still complainant has not adduced any evidence. Since both parties were not present or represented on several postings, case was taken for orders.

 

9. The Points which arise for consideration are : (a) Whether this complaint is maintainable ? (b) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of these opposite parties and (c) if so, what reliefs the complainant is entitled to ?

 

10. Findings on (a) : We have perused the records. Though opposite parties alleged that there is arbitration clause as per their loan agreement and so it has to referred to arbitrator by any Court or Forum receiving petition, no such agreement produced by them. Not only that, even if there is any arbitration clause in the loan agreement, Consumer Commission has jurisdiction to entertain this complaint on the grounds of service deficiency or unfair trade practice. Because, matters in issue are different. Hence we are of the considered view that this complaint is maintainable before us.

(cont…..4)

 

- 4 -

11. According to complainant, he has to pay only Rs.99,861/- as due amount to opposite parties. But this contention was not proved. We have perused the documents which were produced by complainant along with his complaint. Complainant could not prove that he has to pay only Rs.99,861/ as due amount in this loan account. As per Ext.P2, it is seen that Rs.5,03,273/- (Five lakhs three thousand two hundred and seventythree only) as arrear amount in this loan account. It is not proved whether opposite party demanded or received exorbitant interest from complainant. It is not proved either that there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of these opposite parties. Complainant has not proved his allegations against opposite parties. Hence, this complaint is dismissed, without costs, under the circumstances.

 

Pronounced by this Commission on this the 17^th day of December, 2021

 

Sd/-

SMT. ASAMOL P., MEMBER

Sd/-

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

SRI. AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

 

 

APPENDIX

Depositions :

Nil.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 - sale agreement,

Ext.P2 - statement of account.

Ext.P3(series) - loan receipts.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

Forwarded by Order,

 

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT