IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Tuesday the 27th day of October, 2015
Filed on 20.12.2003 & 3.9.2004
Present
- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.Nos.294/2003 & 187/2004
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Sri. Mohammed Riyad CC/294/2003:- 1) The Manager, Integrated
Puthen Purackal Finance Co. Ltd., East of
Zachariah Ward, Alappuzha Iron Bridge, Mullackal
(By Adv. Somanadha Kurup) Alappuzha
2) Sri. Basheer, Rtd. S.I. of Police
Seejar Manzil, Punnapra
CC/187/2004:- 1) The Manager, Integrated
Finace Co. Ltd., East of Iron
Bridge, Machunkal Buildings Alappuzha
2) Integrated Finance Co. Ltd. Machunkal Buildings, East of Iron Bridge, Alappuzha
(By Adv. S.Ganesh Kumar)
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
This is a case remanded as per the order of Hon’ble State Commission for rehearing the parties. Accordingly notice issued to all the parties and heard the matter. Complainant and opposite parties made appearance and we have heard the learned counsels.
2. The case of the complainant in CC/No.294/2003 is as follows:-
Complainant has availed a loan amount of Rs.19,600/- from the opposite parties on 11.1.2002 and he has remitted the installments without any default. While so on 20.10.2003 the opposite parties forcefully taken the vehicle from the complainant. Thereafter the complainant has taken the vehicle after making payment of Rs.15,582/- to the opposite parties. But while taking the vehicle he noticed that the opposite parties have caused much damage to the vehicle that amounts to Rs.5,500/-. More over the opposite parties have collected excess amount while closing the loan. Hence the complaint is filed.
2. CC/187/2004 was filed by the complainant against the opposite parties for the inconveniences caused to the complainant due to the failure on the part of the opposite parties in handing over the RC book removing hypothecation note.
3. The version of the opposite parties is as follows:-
The complainant committed default in remitting the EMI. Complainant is bound to comply the terms of the agreement. Since the complainant committed default, the vehicle is repossessed by the opposite parties by due process of law. The allegation that the opposite parties manhandled the brother-in-law of the complainant is not correct and hence denied. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
4. The complainant was examined as PW1. The documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A30. The documents produced by the opposite parties were marked as Ext.B1 series.
5. The points for consideration are the following:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2) If so the reliefs and costs.
6. Complainant has availed a financial loan of Rs.19,600/- from the opposite parties for purchasing an LML Adromp Fx vehicle. As per the agreement entered into between the complainant and opposite parties, he has to repay the loan amount in 23 equal installments at Rs.2,267/- per month. The complainant deposited 21 installments up to 14.10.2003. According to the complainant the opposite parties on 20.10.2003 without notice, forcefully taken the vehicle from the possession of the complainant and manhandled the brother-in-law of the complainant. Hence the complainant filed a complaint before the Superintendent of Police and also before the C.I., South Police Station, Alappuzha. Exts.A1 and A2 evidenced the same. According to the opposite parties the complainant committed default in remitting the EMI and hence they have taken the vehicle by due process of law. The point to be considered is whether the opposite parties had taken the vehicle legally or not. As per the decision of the “Maruti Finance Limited Vs. S. Vijaya Lekshmi III 2007 CPJ page No.161,” the banks and financial agencies should resort procedure recognized by law to take possession of vehicle in cases where the borrower may have committed default in payment of installments instead of taking resort to arm tactics. In the instant case the opposite party failed to produce any evidence in order to prove that they have taken the possession of the vehicle after giving notice to the complainant. In fact by the unilateral acts of the opposite parties by taking away the vehicle without notice to the complainant has certainly resulted much inconvenience, mental pain to the complainant. In the circumstances, we find that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and for which the complainant is to be compensated. The complainant is entitled to get compensation for the mental agony, hardships and financial loss caused due to the acts of the opposite parties. Another allegation of the complainant is that while he taken the vehicle as per the order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, he noticed the damage caused to the vehicle due to the act of the second opposite party. Hence he filed a complaint before the S.I. of Police, Alappuzha South Police Station. Apart from that according to the complainant even though he closed full loan amount, he has not received back the termination note. But the opposite party filed version completely denying this allegations. According to the opposite party no damage caused to the vehicle as alleged by the complainant. While cross examining the complainant as PW1, he admitted that he had not given written complaint before the Police about the damage caused to the vehicle. So the allegation of the complainant with regard to the damage sustained to the vehicle due to the act of the opposite party is not proved. According to the opposite party the termination note was not issued to the complainant because of the non co-operation of the complainant. But there is no documents to prove that they have issued the termination note soon after the complainant closed the loan. The failure on the part of the opposite party in issuing the termination note to the complainant, certainly cause much inconveniences to the complainant.
7. In CC/No.294/2003 the main allegation of the complainant is that the opposite party has collected excess amount from the complainant in closing the loan. It is an admitted fact that complainant had taken the vehicle from the custody of the opposite party as per the order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court. While cross examining the complainant he answered to the question, “I¼\nbv¡p Int« XpI Un.Un. FSp¯v tImSXnbn lmPcm¡nbtà I¼\nbv¡v sImSp¯Xv ?(Q) AsX. (A)”. If the complainant admitted that he had remitted only the due amount to the opposite party, how can he claim again that he had paid excess amount. Hence we are of opinion that the complainant is not entitled to claim the refund of any amount.
8. From the forgoing discussions we are of opinion that the delay on the part of the opposite parties in issuing the termination note to the complainant also amounts to deficiency in service and it is also to be compensated by the opposite parties.
In the result, the complaint in CC/No.187/2004 is allowed partly. The opposite parties are directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) for the mental agony and inconveniences caused to the complainant by the act of the opposite parties for the delay in issuing the termination note and also for the act of the opposite parties in taking the possession of the vehicle without notice to the complainant. The opposite parties are further directed to pay an amount of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of this proceedings to the complainant. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 27th day of October, 2015. Sd/- Smt.Elizabeth George (President) :
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Sd/- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Mohammed Riyad (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Copy of the complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Alappuzha
Ext.A2 - Copy of the complaint before the C.I. of Police, Alappuzha South
Ext.A3 - Copy of the receipt from C.I. of Police, Alappuzha South
Ext.A4 - Copy of the application before the Superintendent of Police, Alappuzha dated
1.11.2003
Ext.A5 - Copy of the complaint before the S.I. of Police, Alappuzha South
Ext.A6 - Copy of the complaint dated 29.11.2003 before the Superintendent of Police,
Alappuzha
Ext.A7 - Copy of the complaint dated 2.12.2003
Ext.A8 - Copy of the complaint dated 11.1.2004
Ext.A9 - Postal receipt
Ext.A10 - Acknowledgement card
Ext.A11 - Receipt of the petition dated 12.1.2004
Ext.A12 - Copy of the complaint dated 15.1.2004
Ext.A13 - Receipt of petition
Ext.A14 - Copy of the complaint dated 21.1.2004
Ext.A15 - Copy of the complaint dated 28.4.2004
Ext.A16 - Copy of the FIS & FIR
Ext.A17 - Copy of the accident register-cum-wound certificate
Ext.A18 - Statement of additional finance charges from 14.1.02 to 13.11.03
Ext.A19 - Receipt for Rs.2480/-
Ext.A20 - Temporary receipt for Rs.4684/-
Ext.A21 - Temporary receipt for Rs.4534/-
Ext.A22 - Temporary receipt for Rs.5384/-
Ext.A23 - Copy of the letter dated 4.8.2003
Ext.A24 - Courier Consignee Note
Ext.A25 - Copy of the DD for Rs.15582/-
Ext.A26 - Bill for Rs.15,582/-
Ext.A27 - Bill for Rs.45,648/-
Ext.A28 - Copy of the Termination Note
Ext.A29 - Copy of the official memorandum 21.11.2003
Ext.A30 - Copy of the certificate of registration
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
Ext.B1 series - Copy of the demand promissory note (6 pages)
// True Copy //
By Order Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
