KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL 68/2011
JUDGMENT DATED: 30..9..2011
PRESENT
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
Mammutty, S/o Moosa, : APPELLANT
6/838, Puthenthodika House,
Kambalakkad.P.O.,
KAniyambetta, KAlpetta,
Wayanad.
Vs.
1. M/s Cholamandalam DBS Finance Ltd., : RESPONDENTS
DARE House, 1st Floor No.2(Old No.234),
NSC Bose Road Paris Chennai-600001.
2. The Regional Transport Officer,
Regional Transport Office,
Kalpetta, Wayanad.
(By Adv.P.Balakrishnan)
JUDGMENT
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
The appellant is the complainant in CC.77/09 in the file of CDRF, Wayanad. 1st opposite party/financier is under orders to issue non liability certificate for the cancellation of hire purchase endorsement in the RC with respect to the vehicle of the appellant and the appellant is directed to pay a sum of Rs.26000/- to the 1st opposite party. It is also directed that in case the financier failed to issue the non liability certificate after receipt of Rs.26000/- the 2nd opposite party/Regional Transport Officer will cancel the hire purchase endorsement. The RTO is also directed to issue duplicate RC on application of the complainant.
2. It is the case of the complainant that he availed loan of Rs.1,90,000/- from the 1st opposite party for the purchase of Toyota Qualis Van on 18.1.2008 at the rate of interest 9% flat. The repayment is to be made in 24 instalments at the rate of Rs.9342/-. It is also stated that opposite party had retained Rs.9342/- on 18.1.08 itself as advance EMI. It is also alleged that opposite party had collected a sum of Rs.10,480/- towards insurance premium. It is contended that only Rs.7240/- was paid for availing the policy. After deducting other charges only a sum of Rs.1,66,688/- was given as loan amount. It is also alleged that the complainant has obtained six blank signed cheque leaves and 2 signed blank stamp papers and also copies of tax receipts and title deed of the property of the complainant. Complainant had paid the instalments till 19.3.09. On 25.3.09 the complainant approached the opposite party to foreclose the loan. The opposite party calculated the entire balance amount as Rs. 74,000/- and the complainant wanted to pay the amount. It was found that the original RC is not seen with the opposite party and only a duplicate copy was found. The opposite party has stated that the original RC was misplaced at the hands of RTO. The duplicate RC was taken without the knowledge of the complainant. It is alleged that due to the absence of the original RC resale value is decreased by Rs.50000/-. The complainant sought for direction to produce the original RC of the vehicle on payment of Rs.74000/- and to issue loan clearance certificate, return blank cheque leaves and other documents and also compensation of Rs.25000/-.
3. The 1st opposite party/financier has denied the allegations. It is denied that the instalments were paid in time. It is denied that the original RC was kept with the opposite party. It is alleged that the opposite party has came to know that the original RC entrusted with the RTO was misplaced and they had issued the duplicate RC to the complainant. It is denied that the balance outstanding was calculated as Rs.74000/-. It is alleged that the complainant is liable to pay Rs.12816/- towards over due interest and Rs.46710/- towards future instalments and Rs.55552/- towards over due instalments as on 8.8.09.
4. The 2nd opposite party/RTO has filed the version stating that the petitioner had applied for duplicate RC on 26.3.08 and the same was issued.
5. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PWs 1 and 2, OPWs 1 and 2; Exts A1 to A5 and C1,2 and B1 to B4.
6. We find that the Forum made a guess work with respect to the balance due to the opposite party after deducting the amount of Rs.74000/- deposited by the complainant before the Forum which was withdrawn by the opposite party and directed the complainant to pay a further sum of Rs.26000/-. It is the case of he 1st opposite party/financier that a sum of Rs.63469/- is still in due. As pointed out by the counsel for the appellant it is not explained as to how the amount of Rs.26000/- was calculated.
7. We find that the Forum has found that Ext.C1 application for issuance of the duplicate RC appeared to be not filed by the complainant as the signature was found different on verification of the signature of the complainant in the vakalath and in Ext.C1. We find the signature of the complainant seen in Ext.B3 loan agreement is also entirely different from the signature in Ext.C1. The only inference that can be drawn is that the application for duplicate RC was not made by the complainant. The above would indicate that the case of the complainant that the original RC was lost from the possession of the financier appears true.
8. It is in evidence that complainant has paid installments upto 19.3.09 which would be 15 instalments at the rate of Rs.9342/- which would work out to Rs.1,40,130/-. The loan amount was Rs.1,90,000/-. The repayment amount at the rate of Rs.9342/- in 24 instalments would work out to Rs.2,24,208/-. The complainant wanted to foreclose the loan and approached the opposite party on 25.3.09. According to the complainant the opposite party calculated the balance due as Rs.74000/-. If Rs.74000/- is added to Rs.1,40,130/-, the amount already paid the total would work out to Rs.2,14,130/-. The total interest portion of the loan amount for 24 months would work out to Rs.34208/-. Interest portion for 15 months already paid would work out to Rs.21375/-. The above amount added to loan amount of Rs.1,90,000/- would be Rs.2,11,375/-. There was 9 more instalments due. The amount of 9 instalments at the rate of Rs.9342/- would be at Rs.84078/-. According to the case of the complainant the balance was calculated at Rs.74000/- before the expiry of 9 more months. The opposite party would have and is bound to provide the deduction for the future instalments with respect to the interest portion. If so the amount arrived at as on 25.3.09 as Rs.74000/- appears correct. It has also to be noted that the complainant had filed the complaint on 8.6.09 and remitted Rs.74000/- before the Forum also. In the circumstances direction to pay a further sum of Rs.26000/- appears unjust. Evidently the loan transaction could not be foreclosed due to the lapse on the part of the opposite parties as the original RC was lost from their custody. In the circumstances the direction to make a further payment of Rs.26000/- by the complainant is set-aside. The rest of the order of the Forum is sustained. Appeal is allowed as above.
Office will forward the LCR to the Forum along with the copy of this order.
JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
ps
