KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

                            VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM                                                                                                                   

APPEAL NO.41/10

JUDGMENT DATED 10.3.2011

PRESENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU                --  PRESIDENT

SHRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR                    --  MEMBER

 The Managing Director,

Manappuram General Finance and

Leasing Ltd; Valappad,                                                --  APPELLANT

Thrissur.                                                                                            

   (By Adv.N.Padmini)

            Vs.

Moidin Muthu,

2/559, Kalathil Veedu,                                        --  RESPONDENT

Sreekrishnapuram P.O,

Ottappalam Taluk,

Palakkad.

(K.R.Kochunarayanan)

                                                JUDGMENT

SHRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR,MEMBER

          This appeal is preferred by the opposite party in CC.82/08 of CDRF, Palakkad.  By the impugned order dated 23.10.09, the appellant is under directions to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation and cost of Rs.1,000/- within one month from the date of receipt of the order failing which the amount shall carry interest at 9% per annum from the date of the order till the date of realization.

          2. The case of the complainant is  that he has purchased a goods Autorickshaw bearing No.KL 51/2364 by availing loan from the opposite party.   The complainant has admitted that he could not make the payments towards some installments as he was laid up and  it is his case that the opposite party force fully took away the vehicle without complying  any legal formalities.   It is stated by him that he had filed a complaint before the  Sreekrishnapuram Police Station regarding the forceful seizure of the vehicle.  It is also his case that he received a notice regarding the sale of the vehicle only on 25.2.08 though it was dated 28.1.08 and when he approached the opposite party for clearing the loan dues, the vehicle was already sold.  Alleging deficiency in service, the complaint was filed praying for directions to the opposite party to pay a total sum of Rs.41,200/-.

3. The opposite party filed version resisting the complaint.  It was submitted that the complainant was a defaulter in the repayment of the loan and the allegation regarding forceful  seizure of the vehicle was denied.  It was stated that the complaint himself had surrendered the vehicle before the opposite party as the complainant could not remit the installments in time due to his illness.  It was also submitted that the vehicle was sold in auction on 20.2.08  after giving notice to the complainant and it was sold for Rs.70,000/- and further that an amount of Rs.97,823/-  was due to the opposite party  after adjusting the amount received towards the sale of the autorikshaw.  Contending that there was no deficiency in service, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4. The evidence consisted of the proof affidavit filed by the complainant and Exts.A1 to A4 on his side.  The opposite party also filed affidavit and Exts.B1 to B3 weremarked.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued before us that the order of the forum below is without any appreciation of the facts, circumstances and the evidence adduced in the case.  It is her very case that the opposite party had sold the vehicle after giving due notice to the complainant and also that the vehicle was surrendered by the complainant himself due to his inability to pay the installments in time and due to the fact that the complainant was laid up due to jaundice.  Inviting our attention to Ext.B3, the learned counsel argued for the position that the complainant himself had surrendered the vehicle before the opposite party and it was as a last chance that the opposite party auctioned the vehicle for realizing at least some amount towards the dues of the complainant.   It was also argued that the opposite parties could not be found fault with for the said auction   and the opposite party had not taken any coercive steps for realizing the balance amount due from the   complainant.   It is also argued  that the complaint was filed by the complainant to avoid the payment of dues to the opposite party and she canvassed for the position that the appeal  is to be allowed   thereby dismissing the complaint in toto.

          6. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and also on perusing the records, we find that it is the admitted case of both the parties that the complainant had purchased an  autorikshaw by availing loan from the opposite party and that the complainant  could not remit the installments to the opposite party in time.  It is also seen that the vehicle was taken over by the opposite party though the opposite party would argue that the complainant himself had surrendered the vehicle before the opposite party as per Ext.B3.  On a perusal of Ext.B3, it is noted that it is the printed form prepared by the opposite party and got signed by the complainant/lonee.  It is seen that   the address of the complainant vehicle number, loan number etc. are filled in the gap provided in the printed form.  The forum below had gone into the aspect of the forceful seizure in detail and we do not find any reason to interfere with the said findings of the forum below.     The Forum below has also adverted to the position that the notice regarding the sale of the vehicle was not given properly which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  The forum has relied on Ext.A2 for the said finding.  We have also gone through the said exhibit marked as Ext.A2.   It is observed that the resale  notice dated 28.1.08 is seen sent only on  23.2.08 and from the endorsement it is seen that the same is delivered on 25.2.08.  It is on the said point also that the forum had forwarded Rs.20,000/- as compensation.  However, on an  appreciation of the entire facts and circumstances of the case we find that the said amount is on a  higher side.  The complainant has not adduced any evidence to show how much he has suffered due to the repossession  of the vehicle by the opposite party and the delay in giving notice to the complainant regarding   sale.  It is also observed that the complainant has not taken   any earnest effort to  get the vehicle after paying the amounts due to the opposite party.  In the said circumstances we feel that a sum of Rs.10,000/- will be just and proper to meet the ends of justice.    The cost of Rs.1,000/- ordered by the Forum below is sustained.

          In the result, the appeal is allowed in part with the modification indicated above.  Thereby, the appellant/opposite party is directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.10,000/-  as compensation with cost of Rs.1,000/- within one month from the date of this order, failing which the amounts shall carry interest at 9% per annum from the date of order of the forum below till realization.   In the facts and circumstances of the present case, there is no order as to costs.   

 S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR --  MEMBER

JUSTICE  K.R.UDAYABHANU --  PRESIDENT