CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Present
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No. 249/2010
Monday, the 30th day of April, 2012
Petitioner : Joji Sebastian,
Nediyakalayil House,
Athirampuzha P.O
Ettumanoor.
(By Adv. Avaneesh. V.N)
Opposite parties : 1) Sriram City Union Finance Ltd.
221 Rovapetta High Road,
Mylapore, Chennai
reptd.by its Managing Director.
2) The Branch Manager,
Sriram City Union Finance Ltd.,
Geetha Commercial Complex,
New YWCA, Kottayam.
(By Adv. Sreenivas V. Pai.)
O R D E R
Sri. K.N Radhakrishnan, Member
The case of the complainant presented on 5..10..2010 is as follows:
He had purchased a TVS. Victor plus Motor Cycle. The 1st opposite party is a registered company engaged in financial business and they avail loan for the purchase of vehicle. The loan amount sanctioned to petitioner was Rs. 42,000/- . As per agreement No. KTM-1812 the complainant has to repay the amount with interest in 36 installments. The EMI was fixed as Rs. 1486/-. At the time of agreement, as a security of the loan amount, the opposite party demanded the original R.C Book, duplicate key, and blank Cheques signed by the complainant and accordingly all those things were handed over to the opposite party. The complainant was regularly remitting the loan amount through city Union Bank and also given it to the collection agent of opposite party. In early 2009 the complainant suffered financial difficulty and because
-2-
of that some installments were in due. According to the direction of the opposite party the complainant surrendered the vehicle to the opposite party. On 21..5..2009, said fact was acknowledged by opposite party. Subsequently complainant closed the entire loan amount and vehicle was released. At that time complainant demanded the R.C Book and other documents. The opposite party told that those were kept at head office of opposite party. Even after repeated demands they are not willing to hand over the R.C Book, duplicate key, Blank Cheques and NOC. On 28..9.2010 the complainant went to the 2nd opposite party. Now they intimated that there was dues pending and that will amount to Rs. 28,582/-. The complainant demanded for statement of accounts, but they were not amenable for the said demand. On 30..5..2009 the complainant remitted the balance installments and Rs. 1,500/- towards Cheque bouncing charges and closed the loan. Hence this complaint.
The notices were served with the opposite parties they appeared and filed their version contending as follows: The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The opposite party is working under the registration and guidelines of RBI. The complainant agreed all the terms and conditions and executed a loan-cum-hypothecation agreement with the opposite party on 20..10..2006. The complainant had further agreed to repay the principal amount, interest and other charges at the rate of Rs. 1,486/- per month in 36 EMI’s starting from 7..11..2006 to 7..10..2009. When the complainant committed defaults and delay in repaying the loan amount of more than 8 EMI’s, the opposite parties were compelled to repossess the vehicle peacefully
-3-
on 21..5..2009 with the consent of the complainant and kept in the safe custody. Thereafter when the complainant paid the defaulted arrears on 30..5..2009, the vehicle was released o the complainant. But the loan account is not closed yet. On 30..5..2009, the complainant paid only a part payment, which was the then arrears. Even the tenure will not end on 30..5..2009. As per the statement of accounts dt: 29..11..2010, an amount of Rs. 16,900/- was showing as out standing payable by the complainant to settle the account and to close the account in the book of records. The statement of accounts reveals that the complainant is a chronic defaulter and is always evading the payment. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
The complainant filed proof affidavit and documents which are marked as exhibits A1 and A2. The opposite parties filed proof affidavit and documents which are marked as exhibits B1 to B3.
Heard both sides. We have gone through the complaint, version, documents and evidences of both sides. The case of the complainant is that opposite party has not returned the R.C Book, duplicate key etc. to the complainant even after remitting the entire loan amount as per the agreement. According to him there is no dues to be remitted as loan amount. The opposite parties had taken a contention that the complainant was chronic defaulter in re-paying the loan amount. According to them some amount was due from the complainant as loan amount. Admittedly some amount was due from the complainant and so the vehicle was re-possessed by the opposite party for the default payment. Thereafter the complainant remitted some amount and
-4-
the vehicle was released. From the available documents and evidences it can be seen that the complainant had remitted the amount as agreed in the agreement. Once the vehicle was repossessed by the opposite parties for the default payment of loan amount. Thereafter the complainant had cleared the dues and released the vehicle. It can be believed that the vehicle was released only after cleared the EMI arrears. Moreover the statement of accounts issued by the opposite party, it can be seen that the complainant had remitted the 36 EMI without default. Thereafter also the opposite parties demanded money. Act of opposite party amounts to clear deficiency of service . So, we are
of the opinion that the case of the complainant is to be allowed.
In the result the complaint is allowed as follows:
We direct the opposite parties to issue NOC to the complainant and return R.C Book, duplicate key, un used Cheque leafs if any within 30 days without collecting any charges from the complainant. In default the opposite party shall pay Rs. 10,000/- towards the charges of obtaining duplicate R.C Book and other expenses due to him and pay Rs. 1,500/- as cost of these proceedings.
The order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/-
APPENDIX
Documents produced by complainant:
Ext. A1: Copy of letter Dtd: 21..5..2009
Ext. A2: Copy of receipt dt: 30..5..2009
Documents produced by Opposite parties
Ext. B1: Copy of Power of Attorney
Ext. B2: Copy of loan cum hypothecation agreement
Ext. B3: Copy of Statement of account Dt: 29..11..2010.
By Order,
Senior Superintendent
