O R D E R Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Case of the petitioner presented on 20..4..2010 is as follows: He had purchased a TATA PICK-Up Van 207 Reg. No. KL/5T-8696 with the hypothecation from the 1st opposite party. He had entered in to an agreement with the opposite party for repayment the loan amount. The loan amount of the vehicle which was calculated as Rs. 4,86,496/- ie. Rs. 3,93,000/- as the price of the vehicle and 4 years interest as Rs. 66,496/- and the 3 years insurance of the vehicle as Rs. 27,000/-. The complainant had remitted 1st installment amount along with service charge as an amount of Rs. 16,350/- (10,350 + 6000 = 16,350/-). He had entrusted 47 filled Cheques leafs for 47 EMIS and one blank Cheque leaf to the opposite party. The EMI was calculated as -2- Rs. 10,350/-. The eight EMI was collected by the opposite party through the Cheques already entrusted with the opposite party. The two EMI amount was remitted directly to the collection Executive of the opposite party and they issued receipts to that effect. There after the opposite parties collection executive contacted the complainant and submitted that the Cheque leafs were lost and hence advised to pay EMI directly to the opposite party. So, the complainant remitted 6 EMI directly to the collection agent of the opposite party and they issued receipts to that effect. Then the testing tenure of the vehicle was lapsed and for testing the vehicle as per the provisions of the Hire Purchase agreement the opposite party should remitted the 3 years insurance premium of the vehicle. But the opposite party did not remit the insurance premium amount of the complainant’s vehicle. The complainant had remitted Rs. 226517/- towards the loan amount till date. According to the petitioner there was clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in not remitting the insurance premium to the complainant’s vehicle which was already agreed as per the Hire Purchase agreement. The complainant had sustained heavy loss and damages due to the negligent act of the opposite party. Hence this complaint. The notices were served with the opposite parties. But they did not appear either in person or through their counsel even after accepting the notice from this forum. Hence the opposite parties are set ex-parte. The complainant filed proof affidavit. Heard complainant: We have gone through the complaint and proof affidavit. The case of the complainant is that opposite party has not renewed the insurance -3- premium of the vehicle, as per Hire Purchase agreement. According to him he had sustained heavy loss and damages due to the negligent act of the opposite parties. The case of the complainant stands un-challenged by the opposite parties. Admittedly some EMI was due from the complainant. We have no reasons to disbelieve the case of the complainant. We are of the opinion that case of the complainant is to be allowed. In the result the complaint is allowed as follows: We direct the opposite parties to collect the balance EMI amount from the complainant only as per the RBI norms. (2) We direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for inconveniences and pay Rs. 1000/- as costs of these proceedings. (3) We direct the opposite parties to return back the un-used Cheque leafs if any in the opposite party custody when the petitioner remit the entire due amounts. Both the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant. The order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The order shall not be complied within one month the amount will carry interest @ 10% per annum from the date this order. Sri. K.N Radhakrishnan Member Sd/- Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Sd/- Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/- By Order, | 
