<br /> <br /> <br /> By ADV. RAVI SUSHA, MEMBER.<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed lby the complainant to give Non liability certificate and 10,000/as compensation and 2,000/- as cost.<br /> <br /> The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows:<br /> <br /> The complainant had availed a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from the opp.party and entered into a hire purchase agreement with the opp.party in respect of a motor vehicle bearing No.KL-05/H 4954 [Mahindra 2 WD Jee on 1.2.2000. One Mr,. Shanudheen residing at Venchempu.P.O., Punalur, Kollam the respresentative of the opp.party approached the complainant at his residence and pursued him to avail the loan and done all the paper works in respect of the said loan and subsequently cleared the same. As per the terms of the hire-purchase agreement the complainant had to repay Rs.3,29,500/- . The said amount was repayable in 48 monthly instalments of Rs.7,800/- for the first month Rs.6,850/- each for the remaining 46 months and Rs.6,600/- for the last month. The complainand had been repaying all the instalments without any fault and remitted the 48th instalment ie. The last instalment on 29.1.2004. The opp.party had also issued a hire purchase due list to the complainant which clearly shows that the complainant had remitted all the installments regularly and properly. After repaying the entire amount as per the terms of the hire purchase agreement properly the complainant approached the opp.party for a non-objection letter and non liability certificate in order to produce the same before the RTO for deleting the hire purchase noted in the said vehicle’s R.C. Book But eh opp.party deliberately evading from the issuance of the said lnon-objection and non-liability certificate by urging lame excused. Hence the complainant caused to send an advocate notice on 13.10.2004 by stating all the above facts and also demanding non objection letter and non liability certificate. The opp.party send a reply notice it is alleged that the complainant has still to pay Rs.50,830/- to the opp.party towards overdue compensation charges for delayed payments, insurance premium for 3 years and insurance damage charges and other expenses etc for obtaining the non-objection letter and non-liability certificate.Complainant is a consumer in relation to this opp.party. The complainant had already repaid the entire amount and insurance premium as per the terms of the agreement entered intowith the opp.party he is legally entitled to get the non objection letter non liability certificate from the opp.party. The opp.party is also legally bound to issue the same to the complainant Non issuing of the said to the complainant by the opp.party is illegal and is a clear case of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party. Hence the complaint.<br /> <br /> The opp.party filed version contending interalia that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on fact. The dispute between the complainant and opp.pary is based on a hire purchase agreement dt. 1st March 2002 executed between the complainant and opp.party at Chennai and hence the cause of action as taken place at Chennai. The complainant herein has availed Hire Purchase Loan to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/- for the purchase of his Mahindra Jeep KL-5H/4954 an extent of Rs.2,00,000/- It was agreed that the loan amount will be repaid by virtue of 48 monthly instalments starting from 1.3.2000 for the 1st instalment of Rs.7,800/- and thereafter @ 6,850/-The insurance premium is not included in the agreement amount.Accordingly the opp.party financier has been remitting the insurance premium from the month of February 2001 to February 2004 and have taken the policy in the name of the complainant. In the instant case, the complainant had paid a total sum of Rs.58,330/- on account of insurance premium and Insurance damage charges including postal and sundry expenses. Apart from the opp.party is also liable to pay compensation for delayed payment and there is an additional hire charges of Rs.4,575/- , as on 3.2.2005, the total balance due from the complainant is Rs.55,045/- The complainant had paid total hire charges of Rs.3,29,500/- he has not paid the Insurance Premium and damage charges for 3 years. According to the opp.party a further amount of Rs.55,045/- as on 3.2.2005 is due to the opp.party it can be seen that the complainant has not paid the entire amount as alleged by the complainant. An advocate notice dated 13.10.2004 issued to the opp.party by the complainant the opp.party has given the reply through its lawyer. After suppressing this fact, the complainant has filed the present complaint. In the reply notice it was clearly stated that the said amount is due to the opp.party towards the overdue compensation charges for delayed payments, Insurance premium for 3 years and Insurance damages and other expenses. All the averments contrary to the above facts in the complaint is devoid of truth and hence denied. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of this opp.party. Hence the opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint.<br /> <br /> The points that would arise for consideration are:<br /> <br /> 1. Whether the forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.<br /> 2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party<br /> 3. Reliefs and costs.<br /> <br /> For the complainant PW.1 is examined. Ext. P1 to P5 are marked.<br /> <br /> For the opp.party DW.1 is examined. Ext. D1 to D3 are marked.<br /> <br /> <br /> Points:<br /> The first point to be decided is that whether there is territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. Ext. D1 is the Hire Purchase agreement executed between the complainant and the opp.party. The document shows that it was executed at Chennai. The complainant also <br /> having no case that the opp.party having branch office at Kollam. More over in Ext. D1 it is stated that any dispute between the parties shall submit to the jurisdiction of the courts in Chennai only. By considering all these <br /> points this Forum is not having the territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. The point found accordingly.<br /> The next point to be decided is whether there is any deficiency in service from the side of the opp.party. As per clause 3 [d] of Ext. D1 , it is the duty of the Hirer to insure and keep insured the vehicle during the period of hiring in favour of the owner. Through Ext. D2 series it is proved that the opp.party has taken the insurance policies for the vehicle. As per clause 4 of Ext. D1 the Hirer is bound to repay or reimburse the amount paid by the opp.party towards the insurance premium of the vehicle, with compensation. Complaint also admits that the insurance premium was paid by the opp.party. As per Ext. D1 it is the complainant’s duly to pay the insurance premium of his vehicle. Hence there is no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party. By considering the insurance premium amount the complainant has not remitted the entire due to the opp.party. Hence the complainant is not entitled to get the relief as prayed in the complaint.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> In the result the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed.<br /> <br /> <br /> Dated this the 28th day of July, 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> I N D E X<br /> <br /> <br /> List of witnesses for the complainant:<br /> PW.1. – Maitheen Kunju Rawther<br /> <br /> <br /> List of documents for the complainant<br /> P1. – Hire instalment due list<br /> P2. – Advocate notice<br /> P3. – Postal receipt<br /> P4. – Acknowledgement card<br /> P5. – Reply notice<br /> <br /> <br /> List of witnesses for the opp.party<br /> DW.1. – Ananda Raj<br /> <br /> <br /> List of documents for the opp.party<br /> D1. – Hire Purchase agreement<br /> D2. – Insurance certificate <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />