IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 25th day of May, 2012.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C.No.234/2011 (Filed on 06.12.2011)
Between:
Manoj Kumar,
Vinod Bhavan,
Parakode, Adoor.
(By Adv. P. Hari) ….. Complainant
And:
Manager,
Mahendra & Mahendra Finance Ltd.,
Pathanamthitta.
(By Adv. Hari. V.R) ….. Opposite party
O R D E R
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member):
The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite party for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. The complainant’s case is as follows: On 22.12.2004 complainant approached the opposite party for getting financial assistance for buying Maruti 800 car. Opposite party agreed the same and arranged `1,67,000 as a loan on executing hypothecation agreement between them. As per the said agreement, the loan amount is to be repaid in 48 monthly equal instalments. The complainant as per the agreement repaid the whole amount within the agreed period without default. Further the complainant also remitted certain other amounts as service charges etc. as per the direction of the opposite party. After remitting the full amount and service charges, complainant requested the NOC of the vehicle. But they informed that the complainant has to pay an additional amount for getting the NOC.
3. After the full payment of the loan amount as per the hypothecation agreement, the opposite party willfully evaded to give the NOC. The opposite party’s never gave a proper statement of accounts and receipt for the payments. Complainant on several times approached the opposite party for getting NOC but they are always sticking on their earlier demand. The opposite party is liable to give the NOC of the vehicle because the complainant had remitted full amount as per loan agreement. The conduct of the opposite party is a clear deficiency of service which caused mental agony and financial loss. Hence the opposite party is liable to issue the NOC along with compensation and cost to the complainant. Therefore the complainant filed this complaint for getting the NOC along with compensation of ` 50,000 and cost.
4. Opposite party entered appearance and filed version with the following contentions: The complaint is not maintainable in law or on facts. Opposite party admit that there is an hypothecation agreement between the complainant and the opposite party. Their contention is that complainant is a defaulter in repaying the monthly instalments and he is liable to compensate the opposite party for the losses caused due to the hypothecation agreement between the complainant and opposite party. The total dues to the opposite party is `11,356. The opposite party never demanded any illegal amount from the complainant. The opposite party has demanded `11,356 only as additional finance charges. All receipts were given to the complainant while remitting the instalment amounts. The opposite party never calculated false amount in the account of the complainant and hence there is no deficiency in service. With the above contentions, opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint with cost.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
6. The evidence of this complaint consists of the proof affidavits of complainant and opposite party and Ext.A1, Ext.B1 and B2. After closure of evidence, both sides were heard.
7. The Point:- The complainant’s allegation is that complainant entered into a hypothecation agreement with the opposite party for buying a Maruti 800 car and availed a loan of `1,67,000. As per the agreement, 48 instalments were remitted without default. After remitting full instalments several times he approached the opposite party for NOC. But they refused to give the NOC by demanding excess amount. According to the complainant the above said act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service.
8. In order to prove the case, complainant filed a proof affidavit and one document and the document produced is marked as Ext.A1. Ext.A1 is the statement of accounts issued by the opposite party.
9. On the other hand, the contention of the opposite party is that the complainant is a defaulter in repaying the monthly instalments and he is liable to compensate the opposite party for the losses sustained due to the hypothecation agreement entered between the complainant and opposite party. The total balance amount due to the opposite party amounts to ` 11,356. All proper receipts were given to the complainant while remitting the instalments. Since the complainant has to clear the dues, the non-issue of the NOC is not a deficiency in service.
10. In order to prove the contention of the opposite party, the power of attorney holder of the opposite party filed a proof affidavit along with 2 documents and on the basis of the proof affidavit, the documents were marked as Ext.B1 and B2. Ext.B1 is the certified copy of power of attorney executed by the opposite party. Ext.B2 is the statement of accounts of the complainant.
11. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on record and found that there is no dispute between the parties with regard to the hypothecation agreement. Complainant alleged that he had regularly paid 48 instalments without default. But the opposite party’s contention is that complainant is a defaulter. From Ext.A1it is seen that complainant had remitted 48 instalments. But all instalments are not paid within the stipulated period. There is delay in remitting some instalments.
12. The sole contention of the opposite party is that the complainant had not paid the monthly instalments regularly. For proving this they have produced the account statement which is also marked as Ext.B2 wherein it is noticed that the complainant has not paid the instalments on due dates. The 1st instalment started on 22.12.2004. Ext.B2 clearly shows that many instalments were belated payments. From this, it is clear that complainant defaulted in the payment of the instalments on due date. As per the repayment schedule the loan amount has to be repaid in instalments and on the dates specified in the schedule and the delay in the payment will attract penal interests at the rate of 3% per month and the complainant is liable to pay the same. As such complainant is liable to pay the penal interest for the delayed payment and for that opposite party send a demand notice showing the balance amount to be paid by the complainant.
13. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the complainant has dues and opposite party is not liable to give the NOC without clearing the dues. In the circumstances, we find no irregularity or deficiency of service against the opposite party. Hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed.
14. In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No cost.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 25th day of May, 2012.
(Sd/-)
K.P. Padmasree,
(Member)
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Statement of accounts issued by the opposite party to
the complainant.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:
B1 : Photocopy of the certified copy of power of attorney executed
by the opposite party.
B2 : Photocopy of statement of accounts issued by the opposite
party to the complainant.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent.
Copy to:- (1) Manoj Kumar, Vinod Bhavan, Parakode, Adoor.
(2) Manager, Mahendra & Mahendra Finance Ltd.,
Pathanamthitta.
(3) The Stock File.
.
