Kerala

StateCommission

A/16/14

MANAGING DIRECTOR SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

MAYA - Opp.Party(s)

NARAYAN R

25 Nov 2016

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NO.14/2016

JUDGMENT DATED 25/11/2016

(Appeal filed against the order in C.C No.134/2013 dt. on the file of CDRF, Alappuzha)

PRESENT:

SMT. A. RADHA                                       :         MEMBER          

SHRI. K. CHANDRADAS NADAR           :        JUDICIAL MEMBER

APPELLANTS:

1. The  Managing Director,

     M/s. Sriram Transport Finance Co., Ltd.,

     3^rd Floor, Mookambika Complex, No.4,

     Devika Road, Maylapore, Chennai.

 

2. The Branch Manager,

     M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd.,

     East of Thiruvampady Junction, Thiruvampady P.O.,

     Alappuzha.

               (By Adv:   Narayan.R )                    

                        Vs

RESPONDENT:

            Maya, W/o. Manoj,

Puthenchirayil, Karalakom Ward,

Avalookkunnu P.O., Alappuzha-688 006.

 

JUDGMENT

SMT. A. RADHA  :  MEMBER

          This appeal is preferred by the opposite parties against the impugned order in C.C.No.134/2013 on the file of CDRF, Alappuzha wherein the Forum Below directed the opposite parties to pay the remaining balance amount with 16% interest from 28/5/2015 and close the loan account with satisfaction.

          2.  The facts in brief are that the complainant availed a loan of Rs.2,70,000/- on 31/01/2011 and the loan amount is to be remitted in 48 instalments.  The period of loan expired on 5/2/2015.  It is stated in the complaint that the complainant remitted instalments from 7/3/2011 to 9/10/2012 without any default and the total amount remitted was Rs.1,87,150/-.  When the complainant approached the opposite party to close the loan amount, the opposite party demanded Rs.2,33,000/- towards the balance amount.  It is alleged in the complaint that the opposite party threatened to take the vehicle from the complainant.  The complainant was ready to settle the amount in full which was not agreeable to the opposite party.  The complainant filed a complaint before the Legal Service Authority wherein the opposite party remained absent.  Hence filed the complaint before the Forum Below to allow the complainant to remit the balance amount of Rs.93,737/- with 16% interest from 10/10/2012.  The rate of interest fixed as per the agreement is 16.00382% pa.

          3.  The opposite parties filed version admitting that the complainant availed the loan amount executing an agreement on 31/01/2011.  As per the agreement an amount of Rs.4,47,642/- has to be remitted in 48 instalments.  The complainant remitted Rs.1,79,000/- which includes the vehicle insurance.  In the loan account, an amount of Rs.3,14,510/- was due to be paid by the complainant and no deficiency in service can be alleged upon the opposite parties.

          4.  The evidence consisted of the oral testimony of the complainant as PW1 and the opposite party as RW1.  The Exbts: A1 and A2, B1 and B2 were marked in evidence on the part of complainant and opposite parties respectively. 

          5.  Heard both sides in detail.  Admittedly the respondents availed a loan of Rs.2,70,000/- on 31/01/2011 from the appellants which is to be remitted in 48 instalments and the period of loan expires on 5/2/2015.  It is in evidence that the respondent remitted Rs.1,87,150/- from 7/3/2011 to 9/10/2012 without  any default.  In order to close the loan account and to remit the outstanding balance loan amount the respondent approached the appellant and it was informed that the respondent had to remit Rs.2,33,000/- as balance loan amount.  The respondent was ready to pay the balance amount with 16% interest as per the agreement which was not allowed by the appellant.  Though the respondent approached the Legal Service Authority the appellants had not turned to settle the matter.  We would like to point out that the respondent wanted to close the account and was ready to pay the loan amount in full with its interest.  As per the loan agreement clause 12 pre-payment – the borrower shall be entitled to pre pay the entire outstanding amount under this agreement at any point of time by giving prior notice in writing.  The appellants are entitled to charge termination charge of minimum 5% of the outstanding principle.  In the instant case, the respondent was ready to pay the outstanding amount with interest was not allowed and charged highly.  While contesting the case the respondent paid Rs.71,250/- from 23/12/2014 to 28/5/2015 which clearly shows that the respondent was very genuine and was ready to pay the entire amount.  The District Forum found that the opposite parties are deliberately denying the loan transaction by paying the entire loan amount in lump sum which amounts to unfair trade practice.  This act of the appellants certainly amounts to deficiency in service by denying the opportunity to close the loan account and charging interest for the entire loan period.  Hence we are of the considered view that the Forum rightly allowed the complaint and we find no ground to interfere in the impugned order.

          In the result, appeal dismissed and we uphold the order passed by the Forum Below.

The office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Forum Below along with LCR.

 

 

A. RADHA             :        MEMBER        

 

K. CHANDRADAS NADAR  :  JUDICIAL MEMBER

Sa.

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER

      DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION, SISUVIHAR LANE,

VAZHUTHACAUD   

                           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

 

 

 

                                                                                                         

APPEAL NO.14/2016

JUDGMENT DATED 25/11/2016

 

 

 

 

Sa.