By Sri. Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member
The grievances of the complainant is as follows:-
1. The complainant has stated that he had purchased a bus for his livelihood by using hard earned money. The vehicle number is KL-10-AV-2532 and permit also granted by the authorities. The agents of the first opposite party had contacted the complainant and offered a loan to the chassis and body building. Subsequently the complainant agreed to avail loan from the opposite party due to the offer given by them. As a result, chassis was booked and other works were arranged. The first opposite party had sanctioned a loan of Rs. 22,00,000/- and repayment was fixed in 60 monthly instalments. The price of the vehicle came to the tune of Rs. 37,00,000/-(Rupees Thirty seven lakh only) including body work, safety equipments and extra fittings. According to the complainant , he had spent almost Rs. 17,00,000/- for the bus and balance amount was paid by the first opposite party to the dealer and body builder.
2. It is stated by the complainant that, the first opposite party procured signatures of the complainant in many printed forms and blank papers. The first opposite party also collected signatures on blank stamp papers and 40 blank cheque leaves from the complainant. Being a guarantor, the wife of complainant also put her signatures on various papers and blank cheques. The interest of the loan is calculated at flat rate and the complainant is bound to pay the interest and the principal amount in 60 monthly instalments. But, the complainant did not get permit of the bus due to some notification issued by this Government. The liability of the loan was increased day by day and the complainant had suffered irreparable loss and hardship. But, with much constraint, the complainant was managed to repay the entire instalments. In addition, due to Covid-19 pandemic situation, the complainant was unable to make yielding of income from the bus service. There was no work and vehicle was kept in idle. It is stated in the complaint that the first opposite party had collected exorbitant amount from the complainant under the pretext of interest on interest, notice charges, inspection charges. It is also alleged by the complainant that the opposite party was adjusting the EMI paid by the complainant in to the above said charges. According to the complainant, the first opposite party had collected first instalment of repayment of loan on the very day of disbursement of loan with insurance charges. It is also alleged that the opposite party did not disburse full loan amount as promised. The first opposite party had collected amount by fabricating records. Even though the complainant had availed a loan of Rs. 22,00,000/-, the opposite party disbursed only Rs. 21,53,775/- to the complainant after collecting Rs. 46,225/- from the loan amount. When the complainant came to know about the unlawful acts of the opposite party , he contacted with the opposite party and proposed to close the loan after disposing the vehicle . It is also stated by the complainant that the opposite party had issued only a copy of ledger extract after closing of loan. It is averred by the complainant that loan agreement was endorsed in Registration Certificate of the vehicle issued by the second opposite party. It is alleged by the complainant that the first opposite party is not issuing letter of termination records to cancel the endorsement in the registration certificate by stating lame excuses. It is stated in the complaint that the first opposite party has committed deficiency in service resulting irreparable loss and hardship to the complainant. The complainant has averred that the second opposite party was impleaded for the just decision of the case and no relief is sought against them. So the complainant has approached this Commission praying for direction to the first opposite party to cancel the hire purchase agreement endorsed in the Registration Certificate of vehicle No.KL-10-AV-2532. It is also submitted by the complainant that if first opposite party is failed to issue termination letter, he prayed for a direction to the second opposite party to cancel the endorsement in the registration certificate. The complainant also prayed for a direction to the first opposite party to pay Rs. 2,00,000/-(Rupees Two lakh only) to the complainant as compensation for the act of deficiency in service.
3. The complaint is admitted on file and issued notice to the opposite parties. The first opposite party received notice but not appeared before the Commission and filed version. The second opposite party appeared and filed version.
4. The second opposite party has stated in the version that the vehicle No.KL-10AV-2532 was originally registered at Regional Transport Office, Malappuram in the name of Firoz Alavi.T.V, S/o Ahammed Haji, Thazhathum veettil House, Kuttaloor, Oorakam, Keezhmuri-PO, Malappuram District and was held hire purchase with Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Commercial vehicle Division, Near Seematti, MG Road, Kochi with effect from 06/04/2016. It is also stated in the version that the complainant had handed over the above said vehicle on lease agreement to one Mammed T.K, S/o Moideenkoya, Padathil Thorayi House, Modakkallur, Koyilandi, Kozhikode District and the registration of the vehicle seen transferred to the jurisdiction of RTO Kozhikode. The vehicle has was having permit under the jurisdiction of Regional Transport Authority , Kozhikode and which was expired on 31/10/2020. It is also submitted by the second opposite party that they are not received application for termination of Hire purchase agreement.
5. The complainant has filed affidavit and produced one document and it is marked as Ext. A1 document. Ext. A1 document is the copy of statement of account dated 07/07/2021 issued by the first opposite party. The second opposite party did not file affidavit. The first opposite party has already abstained from the proceedings.
6. Heard the complainant. Perused document and affidavit. The Commission considered the following points for adjudication of the matter:-
- Whether the first opposite party has committed deficiency in service towards the complainant .
- Relief and cost
7. Point No. (i) and (ii):-
The Commission is considering point No (i) and (ii) together. The case of complainant is that he had purchased a vehicle bearing No.KL-10AV-2532 with financial help of the first opposite party. It is alleged by the complainant that he had availed a loan of Rs. 22,00,000/- and EMI was fixed as 60 monthly instalments. It is averred that the first opposite party had collected exorbitant amount from the complainant under the pretext of service charges, interest on interest, cheque return charges and inspection charges. Moreover the opposite party did not adjust the EMIs into the loan amount. The complaint further alleged that even after closure of the loan the first opposite party did not issue letter of termination of hire purchase agreement.
8. Going through evidence available for scrutiny, it can be seen that the complainant has failed to establish his pleadings with sufficient evidence. One of the prayer in the complaint is that make an order directing the opposite party to issue letter of cancellation of hire purchase agreement or to direct the second opposite party to cancel the hire purchase endorsement in the registration certificate. But the complainant did not adduce evidence to show that he is the owner of the vehicle No. KL-10-AV-2532. The complainant has failed to produce registration certificate of the vehicle before the Commission.
9. The averment of the complainant is that he has been paid the entire amount of the loan. It is alleged that the first opposite party collected exorbitant amount from the complainant by stating penal interest, inspection charges, cheque return charges etc. But the complainant is failed to state the exact amount excessively collected by the first opposite party in his complaint and affidavit. The complainant has produced copy of statement of account issued by the opposite party and it is marked as Ext. A1 document. Ext. A1 document would show that cheques issued by the complainant were dishonoured on many occasions due to insufficient fund in the account of the complainant. Moreover the complainant did not produce hire purchase agreement before the Commission in order to prove the alleged violation of terms and condition adhered with it.
10. It can be seen in the version of the second opposite party that vehicle had been handed over to one Mammed on lease agreement and registration of the vehicle was seen transferred to the jurisdiction of the RTO Kozhikode and permit was also availed from the jurisdiction of RTO Kozhikode. The complainant did not make any attempt to oppose the contentions of the second opposite party. No relief is sought against the second opposite party. The Commission find that the complainant has failed to establish his pleadings with cogent evidence. So the allegation raised against first opposite party is remained as not proved and hence complaint is dismissed.
Dated this 20th day of September, 2023.
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1
Ext.A1 : Document is the copy of statement of amount dated 07/07/2021 issued by
the first opposite party.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party : Nil
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
