IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 19th day of October, 2013.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C.No.04/2013 (Filed on 10.01.2013)
Between:
Hassankunju Rawther,
Kaduvathalackal Veedu,
Chunkappara.P.O.,
Mallappally.
(By Adv. Sony. P. Bhasker) ….. Complainant
And:
Manager,
Sreeram Transport Finance Ltd.,
Geetha Commercial Complex,
Kottayam.
(By Adv. K.N. Sujith) ….. Opposite party
O R D E R
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member):
Complainant filed this complaint against the opposite party for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. Brief facts of the case is as follows: Complainant purchased a tipper lorry bearing registration No. KL/59-979 on 03.01.2011 by availing loan facility from the opposite party for his livelihood. Opposite party collected 4 blank cheques of Federal Bank and 5 blank cheques of service Co-op: Bank, Chunkappara as security for the loan from the complainant. At that time, they assured that the relevant documents of the vehicle should be returned to the complainant immediately. Opposite party collected 4 instalments of loan amount of Rs.72,000 and issued receipt for the same. But they have not returned the relevant documents of the vehicle to the complainant. Finally, complainant directly approached opposite party’s office and demanded the document. But they avoided the complainant by saying lame excuses.
3. Due to the non-receipt of the documents, complainant could not use the vehicle in public road and he had lost his income. Opposite party cheated the complainant by not returning the relevant documents of the vehicle. Moreover, opposite parties are trying to take the vehicle forcefully.
4. Complainant sent a legal notice to opposite party demanding the documents. But they have not turned up. The above said act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service which caused huge financial loss and mental agony to the complainant. Hence this complaint for getting the documents of the tipper lorry and compensation of Rs. 10 lakh with cost of the proceedings.
5. Opposite party entered appearance and filed version with the following contentions: Opposite party admitted the loan transaction. But thereafter he defaulted in the payment and they initiated arbitration proceedings against the complaint. Complainant had not entrusted any blank cheques with the opposite party. Complainant approached the company for a loan and the same was granted on executing a legally valid agreement. The loan amount was also released and the complainant was the custodian of all relevant documents regarding his vehicle. The fact that complainant had paid tax of the vehicle in the year 2011, which was after availing loan from the company clearly proves that he is in possession of all documents regarding the vehicle. So there is no merit in the allegation that opposite party is in possession of the documents relating to the vehicle. Without having original documents no one can pay the tax of a vehicle. The outstanding loan amount due from the complainant is Rs. 9,27,456/- and arbitration proceedings is pending before the arbitrator. Complainant has not suffered any loss due to the act of the opposite party, where as due to the default committed by the complainant the company had suffered huge losses. Hence opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint with cost.
6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
7. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral testimony of PW1, DW1, Ext.A1 to A3 and B1 to B3. After closure of evidence, both sides were heard.
8. The Point:- Complainant’s case is that he had purchased a lorry by availing loan facility from the opposite party and all the relevant documents of the vehicle was kept by the opposite party. That even after repeated demands by the complainant opposite party did not returned the documents to the complainant. Due to this reason complainant could not used the vehicle in public road. Moreover at the time of sanctioning the loan opposite party collected some blank cheques from the complainant. Now the opposite party is trying to take the vehicle forcefully. The above said act of the opposite party caused huge financial loss and mental agony to the complainant and hence opposite party is liable to the complainant for the same.
9. In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination along with 3 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, complainant was examined as PW1 and documents produced were marked as Ext.A1 to A3 series. Ext.A1 is the copy of legal notice issued to the opposite party on 30.10.2012. Ext.A2 is the postal receipt of Ext.A1. Ext.A3 series (A3-A3(c) ) are the receipts of the payment of instalment of vehicle No.KL-59/979 issued by the opposite party.
10. On the other hand, the contention of the opposite party is that the suit is not maintainable before the Forum. Complainant availed a loan from opposite party and thereafter he defaulted the instalment payment. So company initiated arbitration proceedings against him. The relevant documents are in the possession of the complainant. Complainant had paid tax of the vehicle in the year 2011. Without having original documents no one can pay tax of the vehicle which itself proves that the complainant’s allegations are false. There is no deficiency in service from the part of the opposite party as alleged by the complainant.
11. In order to prove the case of the opposite party, opposite party filed proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination along with 3 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit he was examined as DW1 and the documents were marked as Ext.B1 to B3 series. Ext.B1 is the loan cum hypothecation agreement. Ext.B2 is the copy of registration details of the vehicle No.KL-59-979 from Mallappally RTO office. Ext.B3 series (B3 to B3(c) ) are the notices of opposite party to the complainant demanding the payment of dues, statement of account and postal receipts and acknowledgment card of the same.
12. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the available materials on record and found that parties have no dispute with regard to the loan transaction. The dispute of the complainant is that the documents related to the vehicle in question given by the complainant to the opposite party for getting the loan is not returned by the opposite party so far in spite of his request for the same. But opposite party’s contention is that the vehicle records are not with them as alleged by the complainant. Opposite parties further contention is that this complaint is a counter to the arbitration proceedings initiated against the complainant for recovering the loan dues.
13. On a perusal of the available evidence it is seen that opposite party had given the loan during December 2010. As per Ext.B3 dated 28.09.2011 the complainant is a defaulter in the loan transaction. As per Ext.A1 advocate notice dated 30.10.2012 the complainant had demanded the return of the documents from the opposite party. Subsequently the complainant filed complaint before this Forum on 10.01.2013. If these two facts are read together it is clear that till 30.10.2012 i.e. the date of complainant’s notice, the complainant had no complaint against the opposite party in connection with the documents of the vehicle. Further, he filed this complaint only on 10.01.2013 i.e. after lapse of about 14 months from the date of Ext.A1 notice.
14. Moreover, complainant has not adduced any evidence for showing the handing over of the documents to the opposite party and the complainant also failed to adduce any evidence to show the list of records which are given to the opposite party. The complainant himself had admitted that he had paid only 4 instalments out of the 23 instalment dues till January 2013. Further it is quite unbelievable that the vehicle in question was not using by the complainant from the date of purchase onwards due to the non-availability of the vehicle records. The complainant’s silence, for a long period, as stated above, for initiating any actions against the opposite party itself casts serious doubts about the merits of this complaint.
15. In view of the above facts, we are constrained to accept the contention of the opposite party that the present complaint is only a counter against the proceedings initiated by the opposite party for realizing the complainant’s dues. Therefore, we find no merits in the complaint and this complaint is liable to be dismissed.
16. In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No cost.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 19th day of October, 2013.
(Sd/-)
K.P. Padmasree,
(Member)
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : Hassankunju Rawther
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Copy of legal notice dated 30.10.2012 issued by the complainant to
opposite party.
A2 : Postal receipt of Ext.A1.
A3 series (A3-A3(c) ) : Receipt of the payment of instalment of vehicle
No.KL-59/979.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party:
DW1 : Anilkumar
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:
B1 : Photocopy of Loan cum hypothecation agreement.
B2 : Photocopy of Registration details of the vehicle No.KL-59-979.
B3 : Photocopy of notice dated 22.09.2011 issued by the opposite party
to the complainant.
B3 series : B3(a) toB3(c) : Photocopy of statement of account, postal
Receipts and acknowledgment cards.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent.
Copy to:- (1) Hassankunju Rawther, Kaduvathalackal Veedu,
Chunkappara.P.O., Mallappally.
(2) Manager, Sreeram Transport Finance Ltd.,
Geetha Commercial Complex, Kottayam.
(3) The Stock File.
