CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 30th day of January, 2016
PRESENT : SMT. SHINY.P.R, PRESIDENT
: SMT. SUMA. K.P, MEMBER Date of filing : 22/09/2014
CC /144/2014
Yousaf, : Complainant
S/o.Hamsakutty Haji,
Pallath House, Kulukkallur (P.O),
Shornur, Vallapuzha,
Palakkad District.
(By Adv.Raghavanunni.V)
Vs
1. Manager,
Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd,
1st Floor, Near Fort Palace Hotel,
Palakkad.
(By Adv.M.Krishnadas) : Opposite parties
2. Manager,
Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd,
No:167-169, 3rd Floor, Annasalai,
Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015
(By Adv.M.Krishnadas)
O R D E R
By Smt. Suma. K.P, Member,
The complainant availed a loan of Rs.8,83,000/- from the opposite parties to purchase Ashok Leyland Lynx and a loan agreement was entered into between the complainant and opposite parties. The complainant alleges that the loan amount was agreed to be paid in 48 EMI @ Rs.35,200/- per month. Eventhough the complainant himself paid an amount of Rs.96,000/- towards the insurance of the vehicle the opposite party had credited the said amount in his account, and he was again asked to pay the same amount towards insurance. The opposite parties threatened him by saying that if the above said insurance amount of Rs.96,000/- was not paid, the opposite parties would not allow him to ply his vehicle on the road and atlast he was constrained to close the loan. The complainant further alleges that the opposite parties collected an amount of Rs.10,000/- as penalty and an excess amount of Rs.65,000/- on different heads and he paid those amounts due to the threatening by the opposite parties. He claimed relief for the same from the opposite parties over phone several times, but no relief was provided . The complainant alleges that above act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service on their part and that caused mental agony, loss and hardship to him. Hence the complainant had approached before the Forum seeking an order directing the opposite parties to refund an amount Rs.75,000/- collected in excess under various heads along with Rs.25,000/- as compensation for the mental agony suffered along with the cost of this litigation.
The complaint was admitted and notice was issued to the opposite parties for appearance. Opposite party 1 and 2 entered appearance and filed version stating the following contentions. As per the loan agreement entered between the complainant and opposite parties, complainant has to repay the loan amount along with finance charges and other incidental charges which are specifically mentioned in the said agreement in 48 installments. The amount of EMI was also fixed @ Rs.35,200/- for the first 15 months, @Rs.29,200/- for the next 15 months and @Rs.14,199/- for the remaining months. The opposite parties never threatened the complainant to pay an amount of Rs.96,000/- towards insurance premium as alleged by him. The complainant was a chronic defaulter. Though the EMI for the first 15 months was fixed as Rs.35,200/- the complainant not even paid a single EMI at that rate. He was making payments @Rs.32,000/- and that too was very irregular and delayed manner. When he started to pay the remaining EMI’s at his wish, the opposite parties informed the complainant regarding the increasing of dues and charges for delayed payments. At that time the complainant showed his willingness to close the loan account with the opposite parties, and they were ready to give waiver in the interest and delayed charges. So by considering the delayed and irregular payments made by the complainant, the opposite parties arranged a onetime settlement scheme, an amount of Rs.82,061/- were given as waiver in the interest and delayed charges and the complainant closed the loan. There was no compulsion or threatening from the side of the opposite parties to close the loan as alleged in the complaint. The complainant is contractually liable to pay the loan amount, finance charges and other charges made mention in the loan agreement. The opposite parties did not collect any amount/ excess amount than what is allowed by the loan agreement. Since the opposite parties did not obtain/receive an amount of Rs.10,000/- as penalty and Rs.65,000/- on different heads as alleged in the complaint, the complainant is not entitled for any of the reliefs claimed in the complaint and hence complaint has to be dismissed.
Both parties filed their respective chief affidavits. Opposite parties filed application seeking permission to cross examine the complainant. Complainant was cross examined as PW1. Ext.A1 to A4 was marked. Ext.A3 and A4 was marked with objection subject to proof. Ext.B1 was marked from the part of the opposite party. Evidence was closed and the matter was heard.
The following issues are to be considered.
- Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of opposite
Parties?
- If so, what are the reliefs and costs?
ISSUES
We have perused the documents produced from both sides. The case of the complainant as per complaint, chief examination affidavit and during cross examination are self contradictory to each other. From the reading of his complaint, chief examination affidavit, evidence tendered during cross examination shows that he does not have a consistent case. In the complaint he had alleged that opposite parties had receive an amount of Rs.10,000/- as penalty and Rs.65000/- on different heads. The complainant had not produced any receipts/bills for Rs.10,000/- and Rs.65,000/- allegedly paid by him as penalty and on different heads to the opposite parties. During cross examination as well as in the complaint and chief affidavit he had alleged that the opposite parties had received Rs.96,000/- as insurance premium. There is no evidence produced from the complainant to prove the above allegation. More over during cross examination the complainant has admitted that he had closed the loan as onetime settlement and the opposite party has waived an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards interest. It is evident from Ext.A1 that the opposite parties initiated arbitration proceedings towards the complainant and an award was passed against the complainant after closing the loans. But the complainant has not alleged either in the complaint or in the chief examination affidavit or during cross examination that he had a grievance in receipt of Ext.A1. There is no pleadings to that effect in the complaint filed by him nor he had taken any steps for amending the complaint so as to incorporate his grievance. The act of the opposite parties by initiating arbitration proceedings against the complainant who had already closed the loan certainly amounts to deficiency of service on their part. Since the complainant had not raised above grievance in the complaint or in the chief examination affidavit or during cross examination, we are not in a position to allow the complaint with regard to those aspects. Whereas the complainant has alleged that the opposite parties had collected Rs.75,000/- excess amount from him on various heads for which no evidence is produced before the Forum. He had also admitted that during onetime settlement opposite party has waived at about Rs.25,000/- towards interest. In the above circumstances the complaint cannot be allowed.
In the light of the above discussions complaint is dismissed without costs.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 30th day of January, 2016.
Sd/-
Smt. Shiny.P.R
President
Sd/-
Smt. Suma. K.P
Member
A P P E N D I X
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 – Copy of arbitration of 218/2014
Ext.A2 – Original Demand Notice dtd.25/07/2014
Ext.A3 – Notice issued by the complainant to opposite party (Malayalam)
Ext.A4 - Notice issued by the complainant to opposite party (English)
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party
Ext.B1- Loan agreement dtd.27/09/2011 (Original)
Witness marked on the side of complainant
PW1-Yousaf.P
Witness examined on the side of opposite party
Nil
Cost Allowed
No cost allowed.
