IN THECONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,  KOLLAM

DATED THIS THE  22^ndDAYOF SEPTEMBER 2021

Present: -    Sri.E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim, B.A, LLM. President

                    Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member

CC.No.228/2019

Celine Alex @ Celine,

W/o Alex, MedonaBhavanam,

Eruvattuvila, Kannimel Cherry,

Kavanad, Kollam 691003.

(By Adv.R.Rajendran)                                                                    :           Complainant           

V/S

1. M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Service Ltd.,

R.R.Tower, Trivandrum Road,

Madannada, Thekkevila, Kollam                                                :          Opposite parties

Rep.by its Manager

(By Adv.N.MuhammedNahas)

2. The Manager,

Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Service Ltd.,

R.R.Tower, Trivandrum Road,

Madannada, Thekkevila, Kollam

ORDER

Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member

This is a case based on a complaint filed U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

The averments in the complaint in short are as follows:-

The complainant is the registered owner of car bearing No.KL-02-AU 1179.  In order to purchase the said car the complainant had availed a loan of Rs.3,50,000/- from the opposite parties during the month of February 2015.  The monthly EMI agreed was Rs.9,740/- and the same was regularly remitted by the complainant without any default.  The payment was done through money transfer from the account of the complainant to the account of the opposite parties.  Accordingly 36 equal monthly installments were remitted by the complainant.  It is further alleged that as the complainant was a prompt customer and remitted monthly installments properly the loan was revised on 20.03.2018 and the opposite parties has issued an amount of Rs.66467/- by revised loan and asked the complainant to remit the amount in equal monthly installments of Rs.8,700/-.  Accordingly the complainant remitted an amount of Rs.1,39,200/- in 16 equal monthly installments.  Likewise on 16.04.2018, the opposite parties approached the complainant and promised to grant Rs.71,000/- monthly installments of Rs.9,000/- per month.  The complainant remitted Rs.90,000/- in ten equal monthly installments towards the said revised loan.  In short the complainant had remitted a total amount of Rs.5,79,840/- including interest against the total loan amount of Rs.4,87,467/- availed from the opposite parties.  It is further alleged by the complainant that he had repaid huge amount as principal andinterestagainstthe loan amount and now there is no outstanding balance towards the opposite parties.  The complainant had at many times requested the opposite parties to release the loan documents and for statement of account of the loans.  But the opposite parties by alleging one or another reason refused to return the loan documents and is now demanding more amount from the complainant.  According to the complainant on 17.09.2019 when the complainant contacted the 2^nd opposite party he threatened the complainant by stating that they will seize the car owned by the complainant.  Then the complainant informed them that the opposite parties has no right to seize the vehicle since the entire loan amount is repaid by the complainant.  The 2^nd opposite party threatened by stating that they have their own way to handle the issue and they will engage suitable persons for seizing the vehicle.  This was an unwarranted threat by the 2^ndopposite party.  The complainant suffered great mental agony and distress due to the above acts of the opposite parties.  The complainant repeatedly asked for the statement of loan accounts but the opposite parties refused to serve the same.  The complainant is a consumer of the opposite party and she claims that she is entitled for the fairness and transparency in the above said loan transactions.  The opposite parties had already received the entire loan amount with interest.  The complainant is entitled to get back the loan documents and is entitled to release the hypothecation of the vehicle and also entitled to get a reasonable compensation for the mental agony she suffered due to the misbehaviour of the opposite parties.  Acts of the opposite parties are a clear case of unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service.  Hence the complaint.

     Though notice issued from the Forum/Commission was served on 1^st and 2^nd opposite partiesthey have neither appeared before the Commission nor filed any version.  Hence the opposite parties No.1 &2 set exparte. 

Complainant filed affidavit by reiterating the averments in the complaint and got marked Ext.A1 series to A3 documents.  Ext.A1seriesis the original receipts issued by the opposite parties.  Ext.A2 is the photocopy of the bank pass book.  Ext.A3 is the true copy of the registration certificate of the vehicle. 

Heard the counsel for the complainant and perused the records.

The unchallenged averments in theaffidavit coupled with Ext.A1 series to Ext.A3 documents would establish that complainant had availed a higher purchase loan by the opposite parties for an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- and the agreed monthly instalments Rs.9,740/- per month and the same was regularly remitted by the complainant without default.  It is alsobrought out in evidence that the complainant  being a prompt customer of the opposite parties revised the loan amount and advanced an additional loan amount of Rs.66,467/- to the complainant by agreeing to remit equal monthly installments of Rs.8,700/-.  The said amount was also remitted.  Again on 16.04.2018, the opposite parties approached the complainant and promised to grant Rs.71,000/- as additional loan in addition to the said amount and asked the complainant remit ten equal monthly instalments of Rs.9,000/-.  It is further sworn by the complainant that she had remitted an amount of Rs.90,000/-  in ten equal monthly instalments.According tothe complainant she has remitted a total amount of Rs.5,79,840/- including interest against the loan amount of Rs.4,87,467/- availed from the opposite party.According to the complainant a huge amount has been paid to the opposite parties by the way of principal and interest as against the loan amount.  However the complainant had requested several times to the opposite parties to release the loan documents and for statement of account of the loans.  But the complainant’s grievance is that the opposite parties by one or another reason refused to return the loan documents but demanding more amount from the complainant.  It is also brought out in evidence that she had contacted by the opposite parties for the purpose of getting back the documents given by him.  The 2^nd opposite party threatened the complainant that they will seize the car owned by the complainant for which the complainant informed the opposite parties that they had no right to seize the vehicle since the entire loan amount is already repaid by the complainant.  But the 2^nd opposite party again threatened by stating that they know the way how to seize the vehicle by engaging suitable persons.  According to the complainant the act of the opposite parties are a clear case of unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service.  The unchallenged averments in the affidavit coupled with Ext.A1 to A3 documents would establish the case of the complainant. 

It is clear from the available materials that the complainant is a consumer of the opposite party and she claims that she is entitled for the fairness and transparency of the transaction in the above said loan transaction.  As the opposite parties already received the entire loan amount with interest the complainant is entitled to get back the loan documents and is entitled to get released the hypothecation of the vehicle and also entitled to get a reasonable compensation for the mental agony she suffered due to the misbehaviour of the opposite parties.  Therefore the complaint is only to be allowed.

In the result complaint stands allowed in the following terms.

1. The Opposite parties No.1 &2 are directed to return the loan documents of the complainant in connection with the loan related to the car bearing No.KL-2-AU 1179. 
2. The opposite parties are also directed to release the car bearing No.KL02-AU 1179 from hypothecation agreement. 
3. The opposite parties are directed to pay 50,000/- as compensation to the complainant with the interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of complaint till realization.
4. Opposite parties 1 & 2 are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- being costs of the proceedings to the complainant.
5. The opposite parties are directed to comply with the above directions No.1to 3within the 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the complaint is entitled to recover 50 % the invoice price of the said car as on the date of availing the 1^st loan.  If opposite parties 1 & 2 fails to comply with direction No.3&4 the complaint is entitled to recover Rs.55,000/- with interest @ 9 % per annum except for costs from opposite parties 1 & 2 and its assets.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant  Smt. Minimol.S transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the  Open Commission this the 22^nd day of  September 2021.

          StanlyHarold:Sd/-

E.M.MuhammedIbrahim:Sd/-

Forwarded/By Order

                                                                                                                                                                                    Senior Superintendent

INDEX

Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-Nil

Documents marked for the  complainant

Ext.A1series  : Original receipts

Ext.A2            : Photocopy of the bank passbook

Ext.A3            : Registration Certificate

Witnesses Examined for the opposite party:-Nil

Documents marked for opposite party:-Nil

          StanlyHarold:Sd/-

E.M.MuhammedIbrahim:Sd/-

                  Forwarded/By Order

                   Senior Superintendent