By Jayasree Kallat, Member:

 

            The petition was filed on 29.1.2011. The case of the complainant is that opposite party had illegally taken away his motor cycle even after the complainant paying the instalments of the loan amount on time. The complainant had availed loan from opposite party-2 for his two wheeler. As per the loan agreement the complainant had to repay the loan amount within 24 months ie.from 5-6-2009 to 5-5-2011. The instalment amount was fixed at Rs.1900/-. The complainant was correctly paying the loan instalments but opposite party charged interest even after paying the amount correctly. Opposite party had taken over due charges even when the instalment was paid before due date. On 7-11-2010 the opposite party had taken away complainant’s vehicle. The complainant had approached the opposite party to get back the vehicle but the opposite party failed to return back complainant’s motor cycle. The complainant is alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party for taking unnecessary over due charges and repossession of the vehicle before the due date of closing the loan account. Hence this petition is filed seeking relief and compensation.

 

            Opposite parties-1 ands 2 filed joint version denying the averments in the complaint except those that are expressly admitted. Opposite party admits the loan agreement between the complainant and opposite party for the purchase of Bajaj Pulser by the complainant. The monthly instalment to be paid per month was Rs.1900/-. Contract period was for 24 months from 5-6-2009 to 5-5-2011. The opposite party denies the allegations in the complaint that the opposite party had taken excess amount as over due charges from the complainant. The complainant had paid Rs.200/- as over due charges. Complainant had paid only the first instalment which was due on time. All the other instalments were paid after the due date. By the 5^th July 2010, 14 instalments were due from the complainant and complainant had paid only 10 instalments. After 23-7-2010 the complainant did not pay any instalments and in November 2010 the vehicle was repossessed by the opposite party. Complainant has not taken any steps to pay the instalment dues. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Complainant did not have any financial loss. In the circumstance opposite party prays to dismiss the petition.

            The only point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled for any relief sought in the petition.

            No oral or documentary evidence on the side of the complainant or the opposite party.

            The case of the complainant is that he had availed a loan from the opposite parties

 for purchasing a motor cycle. According to the complainant he had to repay the loan amount within 24 months by paying Rs.1900/- as each instalments. The complainant is alleging that he had paid the instalment amount on correct time and sometimes before the due date. But the opposite party has taken unnecessary overdue charges from the complainant and during the month of November 2010 the opposite party had illegally taken possession of complainant’s vehicle. The act of opposite party of taking possession of complainant’s vehicle even after the loan amount paid on time is alleged to be deficient service of the opposite party. The definite contention of the opposite party is that the complainant never paid the loan instalment on time, except the first instalment. When the complainant became a defaulty in paying the loan instalments for months together the opposite party had repossessed complainant’s vehicle. The complainant has not taken any steps to release the vehicle. He has not paid the loan amount back to the opposite party. The Forum had given ample time to the complainant to prove his case. The complainant has not filed affidavit, adduced any evidence or produced any documents to show that he had been paying the loan amount to the opposite party on time. In such a circumstance the Forum could not come to the conclusion that the complainant had paid the dues amount on time and the act of the opposite party of repossessing his vehicle for non payment is deficient in service. Hence we are of the opinion that the complainant is not entitled for any relief.

            In the result the petition is liable to be dismissed.

Pronounced in the open court this the 17^th day of February 2012.

Date of filing:29.01.2011.

 

            SD/-PRESIDENT                    SD/-MEMBER            SD/-MEMBER

 

//True copy//

 

(Forwarded/By Order)

 

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT