IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL  COMMISSION, KOLLAM

Dated this the   13^th    Day of  February    2023

  Present: -  Smt.S.Sandhya Rani, Bsc, L.L.B,President(I/C)

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

                                                CC.398/2020

1. Leela                                                            :         Complainant

       W/o Rajan

      Radha Mandiram

       J.N.R.A 139,Pattathanam Cherry

      Vadakkevila Village

       Pattathanam P.O-691021

       Kollam.

[By Adv.N.Haridas]

2. Rajan

         H/o Leela

        Radha Mandiram

        J.N.R.A 139,Pattathanam Cherry

       Vadakkevila Village

       Pattathanam P.O-691021

       Kollam.

V/s

          Manager                                                      :         Opposite parties

          Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.

          1^st Floor, R.R Tower, Near Sarathy Auto Cars

          Vendarmukku, Kollam-691010.

FINAL  ORDER

S.SANDHYA RANI, B Sc, LLB, PRESIDENT(I/C)

          The first complainant is the owner of the subject matter vehicle Chevrolet  Sail 13 L.S car bearing No.KL 02 AR 339 and 2^nd complainant  is the husband of 1^st complainant and he is the guarantor of hypothecation of the said vehicle with opposite party, Mahendra and Mahendra Financial services  Ltd. Kollam.  By hypothecating the said vehicle the 1^st complainant  had availed a loan of Rs.6,03,205/-  from opposite party on 31.12.2013.  The loan period was 5 years(60 months) and the complainants would have to pay Rs.2,29,795/- by way of interest to the above loan as per the hypothecation agreement.  As per the above terms and conditions the complainants have remitted the entire loan amount with interest Rs.8,33,000/- as on 20.11.2018, within the prescribed period.  According to the 1^st complainant she had issued a cheque amounting to Rs.13,900/- of the Quilon Co-operative Urban Bank to the opposite party on 16.01.2019 by way of loan installment but that amount is not seen entried in the statement of loan account of opposite party.  She had issued another cheque amounting to Rs.14,240/- of SBI  to opposite party but that amount is also not seen entried in the said statement of account.  Moreover the opposite party has charged Rs.2501/- upon the 1^st complainant  by way of cheque return charges after making delay in encashing cheques issued by her.  The opposite party has also received Rs.2200/- by way of service charges, Rs.3205/- as health insurance charge and Rs.1000/- as RC deposit.  Thereafter when the 1^st complainant has approached  the opposite party inorder to get NOC of her vehicle the opposite party didn’t issue  the same but on 20.12.2018 she has received a notice from opposite party by stating that there exists an outstanding dues of Rs.41,700/- being the over dues on account of nonpayment of installments as per the loan agreement. Though the 1^st complainant had given a detailed reply to the said letter, the opposite party didn’t respond to the same.  Again on 01.11.2019 she has send another letter to opposite party instead of sending a reply the opposite party returned the said letter with an endorsement on that letter itself that as per the statement of account of opposite party the complainant did not paid EMI properly there exists Rs.15134/- as overdue pending, if  the complainant would pay the said due amount the NOC will be issued.

          According to the complainants they have already paid the entire loan amount with interest before the maturity of the loan.  Even after repeated requests the opposite party  not issued NOC of the vehicle by claiming different amounts by way of over dues through different letters.  The above mentioned acts on the part of opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Hence the complainants are entitled to get Rs.28,140/- which was received by the opposite party by way of two installments but not seen entried in the statement of account, service charge Rs.2,200/- health insurance Rs.2,500/-, check return charge Rs.2501/- along with compensation Rs.1,00,000/- from the opposite party.  Hence the complaint.

          Though notice issued from CDRC, Kollam was received by the opposite party, opposite party didn’t appeared before this Commission, hence opposite party is set exparte.  Complainant filed chief affidavit by reiterating the averments in the complaint and produced 5 documents which are marked as Ext.A1, A2 series, A3 to A5 documents and heard the counsel for the complainant.

          Ext.A1 dated 06.11.2019 is the statement of accounts of the car loan transaction.  Ext.A2 series includes the copy of letter dated 18.01.2019 send by the 1^st complainant to opposite party along with acknowledgment and postal receipt.  Ext.A3 is the copy of notice/letter dated  01.11.2019 send by the 1^st complainant to opposite party.  Ext.A4 reply notice dated 20.12.2018 send by opposite party.  Ext.A5 is the notice dated 18.03.2019 send to opposite party by the 1^st complainant by demanding cibil report upon the car loan account.

          The unchallenged averments in the chief affidavit coupled with Ext.A1 to A5 documents would establish the case of the complainants.  Ext.A1 statement of account evidencing that on 31.12.2013 the 1^st complainant has availed a loan of Rs.6,03,205/- from the opposite party as per the loan agreement No.2977714 by hypothecating her car KL 02 AR 339 Chevrolet sail 1.3 LS whereas 2^nd complainant was the guarantor of the above loan agreement and they have  paid back the entire loan amount Rs.8,33,000/- including interest Rs.2,29,795/- within the period of  5 years as on 20.11.2018.  Thereafter the 1^st complainant had approached the opposite party several times inorder to get NOC  of  her car, but the opposite party didn’t issued NOC.  But the 1^st complainant has received Ext.A4 letter/ notice dated 20.12.2018 from opposite party by stating that there exists an outstanding dues of Rs.41700/- being the over dues on account of nonpayment of loan installments.  Inorder to get the NOC,  the complainants would have to pay the said amount.  Ext.A2 series reply letter produced and the sworn statement filed by the 1^st complainant would indicate that there is no outstanding balance in the loan transaction as claimed by the opposite party.  Moreover 1^st complainant  had issued a cheque  of Quilon Co-operative Urban Bank on 16.01.2019 amounting to Rs.13,900/- and another cheque of SBI on 10.04.2018 amounting to Rs.14240/- in favour of the opposite party, but that amounts were not seen entried in  Ext.A1 statement of accounts.  In short while attempting a comparison with regard to SBI’s car loan interests the opposite party had exhorted more than Rs.1,00,000/- from the complainants.

          Even after accepting the A2  reply letter the opposite party failed to take any steps to issue NOC to the complainant.  Thereafter the 1^st complainant sent another letter Ext.A3 on 01.11.2019 by seeking NOC of car and cibil report from opposite party.  Instead of sending a reply to that letter the opposite party has returned the  letter with an endorsement on the afore said letter that the complainant is a chronic defaulter and owes to remit an overdue of Rs.15134/- and if the complainants are willing to pay the said due amount the opposite party would issue NOC to the complainants and also endorsed that opposite party didn’t  initiated any CIBIL action. 

          As per Ext.A4 letter issued by opposite party,  inorder to issue NOC of the alleged vehicle the complainants would have to pay the outstanding balance Rs.417000/- but as per the endorsement made by the opposite party in Ext.A3 for closing loan transaction and to issue NOC the complainants have to pay Rs.15,134/- that in different occasions the opposite party claims different amounts by way of outstanding loan dues.  In short the opposite party has failed to mention how much is the actual outstanding due with request to the car loan transaction of the complainants.

          Though there was ample opportunity for the opposite party to appear before this Commission and to adduce corroborative evidences to  strengthen their contentions,  the opposite party miserably failed to prove their part.  If there existing any outstanding liability/loan as a due claimed by the opposite party it must have to be proved by the opposite party with relevant documentary evidence.  But here the opposite party has failed to prove there is an existing  outstanding liability with respect to the alleged loan which indicates that there exists deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party.   Further more the delay occurred in issuing the NOC not only caused mental agony but also financial stringency to the complainants. 

          It is to be noted that the complainants could not produce a single piece of evidence to convince this Commission that the 1^st complainant had issued two cheques in favour of the opposite party as alleged in the complaint.  In this circumstances the complainants are not entitled to get back any amount including service charges as prayed for in the complaint.

                   On evaluating the entire materials discussed above we are of the view that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party. Therefore the complainants are  entitled to get NOC of the alleged vehicle without paying any amount by way of outstanding due and also entitled to get compensation for mental agony and sufferings.

          In the result complaint stands allowed in the following terms:-

1. Opposite party is directed to issue NOC of the Chevrolet Sail 13.LS car bearing No.KL 02 AR 339  to the 1^st complainant within 15 days of the receipt of this order.
2. Opposite party is directed to give Rs.10,000/- to the complainants as compensation for mental agony and sufferings.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant  Smt. Deepa.S transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the  Open Commission this the  13^th   day of    February    2023.

S.Sandhya Rani:Sd/-

Stanly Harold:Sd/-

Forwarded/by Order

Senior Superintendent

INDEX  

Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-Nil

Documents marked for the  complainant

Ext A1        :         Statement of Account.

Ext A2 series:       Copy of notice, postal receipts and acknowledgment.

Ext.A3:       Copy of letter dated 01.11.2019.

Ext.A4 :      Notice from Mahindra Finance.

Ext.A5        : Application submitted by the complainant to the opposite party for issuing cibil report.

Witnesses Examined for the opposite party:-Nil

Documents marked for the opposite party:-Nil