Kerala

Trissur

CC/08/853

Sanila Moideen - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager,Muthoot Leasing & Finance Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Adv.C.I.Edison

14 Aug 2009

ORDER


CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
Ayyanthole , Thrissur
consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/853

Sanila Moideen
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Manager,Muthoot Leasing & Finance Ltd
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. Padmini Sudheesh 2. Rajani P.S. 3. Sasidharan M.S

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
1. Sanila Moideen

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Manager,Muthoot Leasing & Finance Ltd

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Adv.C.I.Edison

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

 

 
By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President:
 
 
            The complainant’s case is as follows: The original complainant purchased a Maruti Wagonor Car No.KL-8/AJ-9725 by availing loan from the respondent on condition that the loan amount will be refunded by 60 monthly instalments at the rate of Rs.8253/- each. The original complainant is represented by Power of Attorney Holder and the copy is produced. The complainant has repaid some instalments at Rs.8253/- each and also paid Rs.2,42,000/- on 7.2.2008, Rs.25,000/- on 24.3.2008 and Rs.15,000/- on 27.6.2008. Thus the complainant has repaid the entire loan amount. But the R.C. and I.C. have not been returned. In the meantime the respondents with their gundas tried to seize the vehicle by force. Hence the complaint is filed to restrain the respondents from forcible seizure of the vehicle and also to return the cheques and documents received from the sureties.
 
            2. The respondent called absent and set exparte.
 
            3. The complainant filed affidavit and documents to prove the case. The documents are marked as Exts. P1 series.
 
            4. The complainant’s case is that she purchased a Maruti Waganor car No.KL-8/J-9725 by availing loan from the respondents on condition that the loan amount will be repaid by 60 monthly instalments at the rate of Rs.8253/- each. The complainant has repaid the entire amount. But the R.C. and I.C. certificates were not returned. In the meantime the respondents tried to seize the vehicle with their gundas. They are also trying to misuse the cheques and other documents received from the sureties. Since the entire loan amount has been repaid the complainant is entitled to get the R.C. and I.C.and also the documents received from the sureties for availing the loan. Even though there is no evidence to the contrary there is no piece of paper produced by the complainant to show the closing of transaction. So the complainant is not entitled to the entire reliefs sought. 
 
            5. In the result, complaint is partly allowed and the respondent and their men are restrained from seizing the vehicle forcibly. The respondent is directed to pay Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) as costs to the litigation within a month.
 
 

            Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 14th day of August 2009.




......................Padmini Sudheesh
......................Rajani P.S.
......................Sasidharan M.S