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 is a purchaser of a Motor Cycle financed by the Opposite Parties. The terms and conditions of the finance of the vehicle was such that the sanctioned amount Rs.36,000/- is to be remitted in equated monthly instalments of Rs.1,465/- for a period of 36 months. The Complainant had also given 36 post dated cheques drawn from Cathelic Syrian Bank Sulthan Bathery Branch No.883661 to 883696. The Motor Cycle No. KL 12C 1097 type Hero Honda Passion Plus is registered in Regional Transport Office, Kalpetta. The EMI were remitted without any default and the Complainant also maintained sufficient sum to honour the cheques in advance without waiting for the due date. The Complainant requested the 1^st Opposite Party to close the loan whereas the Opposite Party demanded exorbitant sum other than the liable amount, while the things are so, the Opposite Party seized the vehicle and for the releasing of it, the Complainant had to pay Rs.18,000/-. Subsequently the 1^st Opposite Party sent a letter to the Complainant stating that the vehicle seized will be resold if the Complainant failed to remit Rs.11,385/-. The Opposite Party collected Rs. 6,615/- in excess till 15.09.2009. The complaint is for refunding the excess amount collected from the Complainant along with interest at the rate of 18%. There may be an order directing the Opposite Party to refund Rs.6,615/- with an interest at the rate of 18% along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- and cost.

2. The Opposite Parties filed version in short it is as follows:- The purchase of the Motor Cycle was under the finance of Rs.36,000/- and the EMI fixed was Rs. 1,465/-. The acceptance of the post date cheques 36 in number is also admitted. The allegation of the Complainant that the EMI was remitted in time and the Complainant maintained sufficient sum in account to honour the cheque are denied by the Opposite Parties. The Complainant had not contacted the Opposite Party for the closing of the loan. The vehicle was not repossessed as alleged instead the Complainant himself surrendered the vehicle and subsequently the vehicle was released to the Complainant on deposit Rs. 18,000/-. The No Objection Certificate and other documents were issued to the Complainant during that time. The pre-sale notice alleged to be sent by the Opposite Party is beyond the knowledge and awareness of this Opposite Parties. The loan was settled on 15.09.2009 by the Complainant remitting Rs.18,000/- without opting for any objection. The complaint filed is with an intention of tarnishing the reputation of Opposite Parties. The cause of action in this case does not exists the complaint is to be dismissed with compensatory cost to the Complainant.

3. The points in consideration:-

1. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

2. Relief and cost.

4. Points No.1 and 2:- The evidence in this case consists of affidavit of the Complainant Exts.A1 to A5 are the documents considered in this case. The Complainant also rendered oral testimony in this case. The Opposite Party has not oral evidence.

5. The case of the Complainant is that the Opposite Parties received excess amount of Rs.6,615/- on 15.09.2009. The loan amount issued to the Complainant was Rs.36,000/- and the repayment was made by the Complainant in equated monthly instalments. The Opposite Parties have no case that the amount claimed to be remitted by the Complainant is not deposited. Ext.A2 series consists of the receipt voucher including the temporary receipt date 15.09.2009 which shows the remittance of Rs.18,000/-. The Motor Cycle was released to the Complainant on the acceptance of Rs.18,000/-. The letter dated 26.9.2009 which is signed by the authorised signatory in which it is stated that the liable sum of the Complainant is Rs.11,385/- till the date of 26.9.2009. The authenticity of this documents is disputed by the Opposite Party. How ever it is seen that the documents which are received by the Complainant are endorsed by the authorised signatory without any specification of the designation of the authority. We are in the opinion that the disbelieve the letter dated 26.9.2009 no sufficient reason is there. It is to be considered that the Complainant was liable to pay only Rs.11,385/-. When the vehicle was admittedly repossessed by the Opposite Party, whereas in such a circumstances, the Opposite Party collected Rs.18,000/- an excess of Rs.6,615/- from the Complainant which is to be refunded and the points are decided accordingly.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties are directed to refund Rs.6,615/- (Rupees Six thousand Six hundred and Fifteen only) to the Complainant with an interest at the rate of 12% from the date of 15.09.2009 till the payment of the same. This is to be complied by the Opposite Parties jointly and severally within one month from the date of receiving this order.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 30^th April 2010.

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

A P P E N D I X

Witnesses for the Complainant:

PW1. James. Complainant.

Witnesses for the Opposite Parties:

Nil.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1. series Copy of Pass Book.

A2 series (6 Nos.) Receipt Voucher.

A3. Copy of Pre-Sale Notice. dt:26.09.2009.

A4. Envelop.

A5. Letter. dt:08.08.2007.

Exhibit for the Opposite Party:

B1. Loan Agreement. dt:18.05.2005.