By G. Yadunadhan, President:

            The case of the complainant is that complainant availed a loan for an amount of Rs.2,80,000/- for a Mini lorry bearing No.KL-K-1061 on 16.5.2005 from the opposite party.  It was closed by paying the entire loan amount including interest during December 2006.  After the payment, complainant requested to give the account ledger immediately.  After verifying the account ledger, complainant noticed the defects in the ledger extract that the opposite party added another amount, i.e., re-possession charge and parking charge.  On the basis of that the opposite party realised Rs.5550/- from the complainant.  Complainant never affected re-possession charge; hence complainant need not pay any re-possession charge or parking charge.  Therefore the complainant seeking relief against the opposite party to repay the entire amount of Rs.5550/-, which is already been collected and to pay a compensation of Rs.5000/-.

            Opposite party filed version stating that the complainant is not a consumer as contemplated under the Consumer Protection Act.  Hence complaint is not maintainable.  The transaction is a commercial in nature.  Therefore complaint is to be dismissed.

            Points for consideration.  (1) Whether the complainant is a consumer?  (2) Whether any deficiency on the part of the opposite party?  If so, what is the relief?

            Complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext. A1 and A2 were marked.  Opposite party has not adduced any oral evidence.  Ext. B1 was marked on the side of the opposite party. 

            Opposite party admitted the transaction and also admitted the loan was closed on December 2006.  The dispute is only regarding whether the vehicle was re-possessed or not?  Here no question of maintainability arises.  So 1^st point is answered accordingly.  Next question is to be considered whether any deficiency occurred from the part of opposite party.  Here the entire amount was closed by the complainant before December 2006.  Account ledger shows that there is re-possession charge.  Complainant noticed the fault committed by the opposite party only after receiving the ledger extract.  Opposite party has no specific answer for that.  No documents were produced by the opposite party to show that vehicle bearing No. KL-K-1061 Mini lorry was re-possessed by them.  Hence negligence was occurred from the act of opposite party; for that no explanation was made out.   Hence deficiency was occurred on the part of opposite party.  Complainant sent a notice to the opposite party stating all these facts that was not replied.  Moreover, opposite party has no explanation regarding the Ext. A2 document.  Hence this Forum finds a gross negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.

            Therefore, the petition is allowed and the opposite party is directed to repay an amount of Rs.5550/-  (Rupees five thousand five hundred and fifty only), which is already collected in excess from the complainant and also to pay an amount of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) as compensation to the complainant with no cost.  Comply the order within one month.

            Pronounced in open Court this the 12^th  day of December 2008.

                        Sd/- President                                                          Sd/- Member

APPENDIX

Documents exhibited for the complainant.

A1            Photocopy of letter dated 205.2008 sent by the complainant to the O.P.

A2            Photocopy of the extract of Account Ledger.

Documents exhibited for the opposite party.

B1            Photocopy of the extract of Account Ledger.

Witness examined for the complainant:

PW1     K. Kunhammad, S/o. Moidu Haji – Complainant.

Witness examined for the opposite party.

None.

-/True copy/-

Sd/-President

(Forwarded/By Order)

Senior Superintendent.