BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 12/01/2010

Date of Order : 23/06/2011

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

C.C. No. 13/2010

Between

And

O R D E R

A. Rajesh, President.

1. The case of the complainant is as follows :

The complainant is the registered owner of the car bearing Registration No. KL-42 A/9961, which was purchased with the financial assistance of the opposite party. As per the loan agreement, the complainant has to pay Rs. 7,295/- in 48 equal monthly instalments from 29-03-2008 to 25-12-2012. The last payment was made on 07-12-2009. The opposite party is threatening the complainant over telephone that if the dues are not paid, they will forcefully seize the vehicle. On 07-09-2010, the henchman of the opposite party threatened the complainant and his family members that if the vehicle is not surrendered in 7 days they would have to face dire consequences. Thus, the complainant is before us with the following reliefs :

1. Not to send the gundas and or to repossess the vehicle otherwise than by due process of law.

2. To pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 5,000/- towards costs of the proceedings.

2. Version of the opposite party :

The complainant has paid only 18 instalments out of the 48 instalments due. The allegation of the complainant that on 07-01-2010, the opposite party's men threatened with dire consequences is absolutely false, no such incident had occurred. The attempt of the complainant is to secure an order of injunction against the probable legal action to be taken by the opposite party. The complainant is not entitled to get any of the reliefs as prayed for.

3. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A5 were marked on his side. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced by the opposite party. Heard the counsel for the parties.

4. The points that came up for consideration are :-

1. Whether the opposite party is empowered to repossess the vehicle otherwise than by due process of law?

2. Compensation and costs of the proceedings?

5. Point Nos. i) and ii) :- During the proceedings in this Forum, we passed the following order in I.A. No. 20/2010 dated 12-01-2010 :

“We have perused the materials before us and heard both the counsel for petitioner/complainant. We do not think it is just and proper or the respondent/opposite party to hire goondas and repossess the vehicle by show of physical strength. Therefore, the respondent/opposite party is restrained from repossessing the TATA Indica car bearing registration No. KL 42 A 9961 by taking recourse to any means other than legally permitted methods.”

6. Further during cross-examination, the complainant who was examined as PW1 has deposed that he is ready to repay the loan amount as per the loan agreement entered into between him and the opposite party, though he had made a few defaults in repayment. It is also stated by PW1 that if the opposite party undertook that they would not repossess the vehicle forcefully he is ready to close the complaint and ready for one time settlement of the account. It is pertinent to note that the complainant does not have a case that the opposite party is charging excess interest or amount from him. In that view of the matter, we cannot find any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. However, since the opposite party expressed their willingness to refrain from any illegal act against the complainant to recoup the loan amount or repossess the vehicle, we feel that the order in I.A. can be made absolute. Ordered accordingly.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 23^rd day of June 2011.