IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday the 24th day of October, 2024
Filed on: 26.12.2023
Present
- Smt. P.R.Sholy, B.A.L, LLB (President in Charge )
- Smt. C.K.Lekhamma . B.A. LLB (Member)
In
CC/No. 424/2023
between
Complainant:- | Opposite Parties:- |
Sri.Chacko.P.J MAXVALUE Credits & Investments Ltd
S/o P.J.Jacob 9/375/71st Floor, Cee Kay Plaza
Puthenkattilchira Opp. Metropolitan Hospital, Koorkkancheri
Near Aravukad West Thrissur-680007
Punnapra.P.O, Alappuzha-6880004 (Adv. Nisanth Kumar.T.K & Amjesh.P)
(Adv. P.K.Vijayakumar)
ORDER
SMT.C.K.LEKHAMMA(MEMBER)
1. The complainant’s case is that:-
The complainant availed a loan of Rs.60,990/- (Sixty thousand nine hundred and ninety only) for purchasing two wheeler from the opposite party by remitting initial payment of Rs. 15,000/- (Fifteen thousand only) as a condition precedent for sanctioning the loan.
2. The Equated Monthly Instalment (EMI) of loan was Rs. 2800/- (Two thousand eight hundred only). The collection agent of the opposite party collected the EMI amount from the complainant. After adjusting the amount in the loan account, the opposite party issued a telephonic message to the complainant on the very same day. Even though the complainant repeatedly demanded to issue a statement of account , the opposite party did not issue the same.
3. On account of covid pandemic the repayment of the loan was defaulted for three months whereas the defendant unilaterally renewed loan agreement on 31/8/2021 and determined the loan amount as Rs. 71,055/-. EMI has been refixed as Rs. 3800/-. Thereafter also the complainant was paying EMI regularly but the opposite party issued the notice dtd. 7/5/2022 demanding to closure the loan account immediately, claiming exorbitant amount. The opposite party threatened that they will take away the vehicle forcefully if the account is not closed immediately.
4. The complainant had remitted a total sum of Rs. 1,31,800/- ie, twenty installments of EMI as per original agreement (Rs. 2800 X 20 = 56000), and fifteen installments as per the renewed contract (3800 X 16 – 60800/-) and the initial payment of Rs. 15,000/-. Thus a total sum of Rs. 1,31,800/- (One lakh thirty one thousand eight hundred only) had been remitted by the complainant for a loan of Rs. 45,990/- that availed from the opposite party on 16/9/2019. According to the complainant had remitted Rs. 1,31,800/- for a loan of Rs. 45,990/-. Further he stated that he had already remitted Rs. 85,800/- towards interest for a short period of about four years. But the opposite party is not ready to admit that the contract is satisfied but they are trying to extract much more amount from the complainant.
5. The opposite party is repeating their illegal demand frequently through the phone also. On 16/12/2023 the hench men of the opposite party again visited the house of the complainant and demanded to handover the vehicle. But their attempt to seize the vehicle failed since the vehicle was not there at the time of their visit. There is every chance to repeat their attempt.
6. The opposite party had committed serious unfair trade practice and deceptive practice where by the opposite party had already gained illegal enrichment and trying to grab more funds from the complainant. Hence filed this complaint and sought following reliefs:-
1. To declare that the contract of hypothecation is satisfied and the opposite party is not entitled to any amount from the complainant.
2. Opposite party may be directed to issue no objection certificate to remove the hypothecation clause from the registration certificate of the vehicle having Reg No. KL-4 –AP-6310 or given a direction to the RTO Alappuzha to remove the hypothecation clause from the registration certificate of the said vehicle.
3. To direct the opposite party to pay compensation and costs of proceeding.
7. Version filed by the opposite party is as follows:-
The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The loan transaction between the parties is true but the loan amount mentioned in the complaint is false. The actual loan amount is Rs. 75,000/-. The averments that the complainant had made an initial payment of Rs. 15,000/- is also false and hence denied by this opposite party. The initial payment made by the complainant is only Rs. 8,962/-.
8. It is stated that in the complaint the EMI of the loan as Rs. 2800/- is also false. The loan was actually disbursed to the complainant on a condition stating that the complainant would pay the EMI with the collection agent of the opposite party. Moreover the complainant never demanded statement of accounts from the opposite party and hence the allegation against the opposite party is not sustainable.
9. The averments in the complaint is not correct that the complainant defaulted EMI only for three months during the Covid Pandemic and the opposite party unilaterally renewed the loan agreement on 31/8/2021 and determined the loan amount as Rs. 71,055/-. The process of rescheduling the loan was done on 31/8/2023 because on that day the complainant had defaulted payments of 4 months and the loan was turned in to NPA status and the loan agreement for rescheduling was also signed by the complainant, and the EMI was refixed as Rs. 3,788/-. The averments of the complainant in the complaint that “ the complainant was paying EMI regularly. Further the opposite party denied the issuance of notice dtd. 7/5/2022 demanding to closure the loan amount immediately claiming exorbitant amount if not paid the amount immediately they would forcefully take away the vehicle. The opposite party never threatened or visited his house on 16/12/2023 and demanded to handover the vehicle as stated in the complaint.
10. The opposite party is only a registered NBFC but not a money lender, hence the business of the opposite party will not coming under the process of Money Lending Act. The opposite party never committed any breach of the loan agreement and complainant never faced any loss and difficulty or hardship on the other hand the opposite party has irreparable loss and injury due to the default in loan repayment. The complainant is liable to pay the due amount with interest to the opposite party.
11. The complainant is liable to pay the amount as per the statement of accounts of the opposite party, so the contract of hypothecation is not satisfied. Since there is balance amount payable to the opposite party by the complainant as per the agreement of hypothecation the opposite party cannot issue ‘no objection certificate’ (NOC) to the complainant in order to releasing hypothecation from the vehicle. Since the opposite party have not issued the NOC, the RTO Alappuzha has no authority to remove the hypothecation from the registration certificate of the vehicle having Reg No. KL.4-AP-6310. The complainant is not at all entitled to get any amount as compensation or cost, since there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the part of the opposite party.
12. . The points that arise for consideration are as follows:-
1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any reliefs as sought for?
2. Relief and cost?
13. The complainant filed proof affidavit along with documents which were marked as Ext.A1 to A4. It is to be noted that the opposite party appeared through the counsel and filed the version thereafter did not participate in the proceedings. Hence we have heard the counsel for the complainant and considered the evidence advanced by them.
14. Point. No. 1:-
The case of the complainant is that even though he had remitted Rs.1,31,800/-towards his two-wheeler loan of Rs. 45,990/-, the opposite party is not ready to declare that the contract of hypothecation is satisfied. Further the collection agent of the opposite party was collected the EMI amount, accordingly opposite party issued telephonic message to the complainant. Even though the complainant repeatedly demanded a statement of account, the opposite party did not issue the same. Further alleged that the opposite party did not consider the payment made by the complainant and issued a notice demanding an exorbitant amount to close the loan and threatened him that they would take away the vehicle if not closed the loan account immediately. Moreover, the henchmen of the opposite party harassed the complainant and compelled him to hand over the vehicle. Therefore, filed this complaint alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
15. The opposite party resisted the allegations levelled against them and contended that the complainant had defaulted four months of repayment and the loan was turned in to NPA. Therefore, the loan agreement was rescheduled, and the EMI was refixed as per the consent of complainant. According to them, the complainant is a defaulter in loan repayment till the date of rescheduling the loan. He paid only 12 EMI's which amounting to Rs. 35,496/-. Further towards the rescheduled loan he paid 15 EMI's ie. Rs. 56,820/_only. Hence, this complaint has been filed on an experimental basis to escape from liabilities. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.
16. Admittedly, there is a loan transaction between the parties concerning the purchase of the two-wheeler and Ext.A1 is the Tax invoice for the vehicle. Ext.A1, A2 and A4 are demand Notices of the outstanding loan amount for the complainant's vehicle loan. The learned counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant has no liability for the amount demanded by the opposite party through said notices since he repaid an exorbitant amount than the loan amount. Further argued that the receipt for the EMI remittance was the telephonic messages sent by the opposite party to the complainant’s phone. Further, it is pleaded that even though the complainant demanded the statement of account from the opposite party, they did not provide the same. The counsel for the complainant argued that the statement of account is the only proof of evidence regarding the payment. Further, it is pertinent to note that the opposite party appeared through the counsel and filed the version thereafter, they abstained from the proceedings. Even though the opposite party denied the above allegations against them in the complaint and contented that the complainant is liable to pay the amount as per their statement of account. It is to be noted that Ext. A4 dt.3.06.2024, the demand notice issued by the opposite party after filing their version in this case. Admittedly, the EMIs were collected by the agent of the opposite party from the complainant's resident. It seems that the entire evidence regarding the repayment of the loan ie, statement of accounts is with the opposite party, they failed to produce said records before the Commission to substantiate their contention. The allegations against the opposite party remained unchallenged since the complainant has substantiated the contents of his complaint with support of proof affidavit. The opposite party did not establish their part with sufficient evidence either oral or documentary. In the absence of any evidence about the outstanding dues claimed by the opposite party, we have no reason to disbelieve the complainant. As per the evidence before us we found that the opposite party committed deficiency in service. However as per the facts and circumstances of the case, we think that there is no need to order compensation. Therefore, we find that the opposite party is not entitled to any amount from the complainant concerning the alleged loan transaction, and also, they are liable to issue a No Objection Certificate ( NOC) to remove the hypothecation clause from the registration certificate of the vehicle concerned.
17. Point No.2:-
In the result, the complainant stands allowed in part as follows:
1. The opposite party is directed to issue NOC to the two-wheeler bearing Reg No. KL-4-AP 6310 of the complainant's vehicle within one month from the date of receipt of this order. The opposite party is also directed to close the loan account maintained with them regarding the complainant’s vehicle Reg No. KL.04-AP-6310.
2. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.1000/- (Rupees Thousand only) as litigation costs to the complainant.
The order shall be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission this the 24th day of October, 2024.
Sd/-Smt. C.K.Lekhamma.(Member)
Sd/-Smt.P.R Sholy (President-In-Charge)
Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Chacko.P.J (Complainant)
Ext.A1 - Legal Notice dtd. 7/5/2022
Ext.A2 - Legal Notice dtd. 1/11/2023
Ext.A3 - Tax Invoice
Ext.A4 - Demand Notice dtd. 3/6/2024
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Assistant Registrar
Typed by:- Br/-
Compared by:-
