DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 16th day of March 2019
Present : Smt.Shiny.P.R. President
: Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member Date of filing: 26/10/2016
(C.C.No.165/2016)
M.Krishnan,
S/o.Manikyan,
Neykkara Street,
Vadkkanthara Post,
Palakkad. - Complainant
(Adv.K.K.Sudheer)
Vs
Manager,
M/s.Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Limited,
2nd Floor, T.M.Complex,
Chandranagar, Palakkad. - Opposite party
(By Advs.Viju.K.Raphel & Lakshmi Krishna Das)
O R D E R
By Smt.Shiny.P.R, President.
Brief facts of complaint.
Complainant had purchased EECO van from the opposite party for which a loan for an amount of Rs.3,25,000/- was granted by the opposite party and the balance sale consideration of Rs.57,487/- had been paid to the opposite party on the date of purchase. An additional payment of Rs.13,767/- had also been made to the opposite party on demand. Complainant submitted that as per the loan agreement the annual rate of interest is 4% and the loan amount is to be repaid in 48 equal monthly installments at the rate of Rs.7,855/- per month. He further stated that he was paying installments regularly and while so on 06/08/2016 he had received a notice from the opposite party stating that he was liable to pay an amount of Rs.18,500/- towards the loan amount along with interest. So the complainant had approached the opposite party to enquire into the matter and opposite party informed that the monthly EMI for the loan he had taken was not Rs.7,855/- per month but it was Rs.9,250/- per month. It is also revealed that Rs.13,767/- he had paid initially towards the loan account was also not accounted. The opposite party acted against the terms of agreement and he had suffered financial loss as well as loss of reputation. The issuance of notice to the complainant has lowered the self esteem of the complainant in front of general public and the complainant will sustain a loss of Rs.66,960/- in total and Rs.13,767/- he paid in advance. Hence the complaint. Complainant prays for an order directing opposite party to pay a total amount of Rs.5,80,727/- to the complainant as compensation and Rs.5, 000/- as cost of proceedings.
Complaint was admitted and notice was issued to opposite party. After accepting the notice opposite party entered appearance and filed version contending the following:-
Opposite party contended that the complainant for purchasing a Maruti EECO availed a loan from the opposite party for which they have entered into an agreement with the opposite party. The amount finances was Rs.3,25,000/- and the finance charges were Rs.1,10,750/-. Thus agreement value was Rs.4,35,750/-. The same was agreed to be repaid on 47 monthly installments of Rs.9,250/- as EMI per month. The first installment was fixed as Rs.1,000/-. The installment was agreed to be paid on the 20th day of every succeeding English calendar month and the date of the last installment was on 21st day. The complainant is a chronic defaulter in repaying the monthly installments and that has invited additional finance charges and other charges as per the terms of the agreement. As per the loan account maintained in the opposite party company the complainant is liable to pay an amount of Rs.45,600/- towards his liability in the above loan transaction. Opposite party further contended that the Forum lacks jurisdiction to entertain this complaint since there is an Arbitration Clause in the loan agreement and any dispute regarding the loan transaction has to be referred for mediation. Section 8 in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is a specific bar against entertaining the complaint by this Hon’ble Forum. The contentions of the complainant that he has suffered mental agony and he is entitled for compensation etc. are denied by this opposite party. The opposite party has not acted in any derogation of law against the complainant. The complainant has not paid the entire dues towards the loan account. This complaint is only a preemptive attempt by the complainant to somehow escape from the liability towards the opposite party and to stop further action from the opposite party to recover the outstanding dues towards the loan account. There is no deficiency of service on the part of this opposite party in the above matter. There is no cause of action for the complainant to file such a complaint. Hence the complaint is to be dismissed with cost.
Both parties filed their respective chief affidavit and documents. Documents from the part of complainant were marked as Ext.A1 to A4. Documents from the part of opposite party were marked as Ext.B1 and B2. Opposite parties filed interrogatories to the complainant and complainant filed answers in the form of affidavit. In the initial state of the case opposite party filed IA/493/16 to refer the parties to the Arbitrator and to resolve the dispute through Arbitration. Complainant filed counter and heard both parties. Section 3 of the Act provides that the provisions of the Act are in addition to and not in derogation of any other law. Consumers are at liberty to choose their appropriate remedy. In the present case complainant opted the Forum to redress his grievances. In the above circumstances we are of the opinion that the parties need not be referred to the arbitrator. Hence IA dismissed.
The following issues are to be considered.
- Whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite party?
2. If so, what are the reliefs and cost?
Issues 1 & 2
Heard. We have perused the documents and affidavit filed by both parties. Both parties admitted the loan which was taken for the purchase of Maruti EECO van and an agreement executed for the same. Complainant submitted that as per the loan agreement the annual rate of interest was 4% and the loan amount was to be repaid in 48 installments at the rate of Rs.7,855/- per month and an additional payment of Rs.13,767/- had also been made by the complainant to the opposite party on demand which was not recorded by the opposite party. Complainant did not adduce any evidence before the forum to prove that the annual rate of interest was 4% and the loan amount was to be repaid in 48 monthly installments at the rate of Rs.7,855/- per month and an additional payment of Rs.13,767/- was made to the opposite party on demand. Ext.B2 statement of account shows that the amount finances was Rs.3,25,000/- and the finance charges were Rs.1,10,750/-, total monthly installments to be paid by the complainant is 48 and the first installment Rs.1,000/- and the rest installments at the rate of Rs.9,250/-per month. Opposite party denied the allegation of the complainant that they had paid an additional payment of Rs.13,767/- to the opposite party. No evidence is adduced by the complainant to rebut the evidence given by the opposite party. From this it is clear that complainant is failed to prove their case. Under the above circumstances we cannot attribute deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. In the result complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 16th day of March 2019.
Sd/-
Shiny.P.R.
President
Sd/-
V.P.Anantha Narayanan
Member
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 - Copy of loan sanctioning letter dated 05.01.16 issued by opposite party
to the Complainant.
Ext.A2 - Copy of repayment schedule issued by opposite party to the complainant.
Ext.A3 - Copy of demand notice dated 06.08.16 issued by opposite party to the
Complainant.
Ext.A4 – Copy of Notice sent by complainant’s counsel to the opposite party.
Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite parties
Ext.B1 - Original agreement entered into between the complainant and opposite party.
Ext.B2 - Copy of ledger print out of statement of account of the complaint.
Witness examined on the side of complainant
Nil
Witness examined on the side of opposite parties
Nil
Cost : Nil
