BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 224/2008 Filed on 04.10.2008

Dated : 30.06.2009

Complainant:

M.M. Basheer, Rahim Manzil, Pangode P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.

Opposite parties:

1. M/s Muthoot Leasing and Finance Ltd., Muthoot Chambers, Kurian Towers, Banerjee Road, Ernakulam, Cochin represented by its Managing Director.

    

2. The Manager, M/s Muthoot Leasing and Finance Ltd., Branch Office, Karamana, Thiruvananthapuram.

This O.P having been heard on 30.05.2009, the Forum on 30.06.2009 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

The allegations in the complaint are the following: The complainant had procured a Maruthi /Omni/CNG/LPG/MARUTHI OMNI LPG STD BS III (5 SEATER) with Reg. No. KL 21/5152 by paying an amount of Rs. 2,47,832/- from the Indus Motors, Trivandrum, the authorized dealer of the manufacturer Maruti Udyog, as per invoice No. VSL 05016398 dated 18.01.2007. The complainant had paid 15 years tax at Rs. 18,800/-. Besides this the complainant had spent as much as Rs. 29,000/- for various luxury fittings, protective coatings, sun film, Sony CD Player, additional speakers and so on. The vehicle was hypothecated to M/s Muthoot Leasing and Finance Ltd., Thiruvananthapuram and availed a loan for a sum of Rs. 2,20,000/- on 31.01.2007 as per hypothecation No. 45127 and equated monthly instalment is fixed illegally at Rs. 5,234/-. The complainant had remitted a total amount of Rs. 79,073/- including bulk remittance of an amount of Rs. 20,500/- paid on 25.08.2008. The payments were illegally accounted towards penal interest of Rs. 7,997/-. The interest charged is camouflaged as finance charge in order to get away from the financial regulations contemplated under the Kerala State Money Lenders Act and the Reserve Bank Regulations and the same is arrived at Rs. 94,050/- without any rhyme or reason after stipulating an interest at 8.55% and the total interest worked out for a period of 60 months. The afore mentioned interest is divided over a period of 60 months along with the principal amount which is excessive, arbitrary and purported to make unfair and undue enrichment against law and ethics. This will not fit in the usual system of quarterly rest or annual rest calculation of interest followed by financial institutions and is clearly an unscrupulous exploitation. The vehicle met with an accident on 23.06.2007 at 1.30 a.m at Thekkinkad, Nagaroor village, Thiruvananthapuram district. The opposite parties are informed that a claim for a sum of Rs. 2,35,000/- was preferred for the totally damaged vehicle through the Hon'ble Permanent Lok Adalat and the accident caused impossibility in performing the regular remittance after six months of payment as the accident occurred within 6 months of purchase. The opposite parties received the fruits of the said litigation before the Hon'ble Permanent Lok Adalat amounting to Rs. 1,40,000/- on 18.09.2008 among other direct payments. Surprisingly a notice dated 09.09.2007 was sent by the counsel of the opposite parties calling upon the complainant to remit Rs. 2,43,858/- within 15 days of the date of notice against which a reply has already been sent by the counsel for the complainant. The opposite parties claimed an amount in the notice whereas the claim before arbitration is in excess of what is stated in the notice and thus arbitrary and a deficiency in service. There is no justifiable reason in invoking the hard and inequitable provisions of the un-negotiated printed term agreement containing unfair terms of contract when the vehicle was damaged following an accident beyond the control of the complainant or the opposite parties. The actions of the opposite parties amount to an unfair trade practice, deficiency in service and unscrupulous exploitation. The complainant is entitled to the waiver of any further payment owing to the accident which is an act of God. At any rate the complainant is not liable to pay interest on the loan beyond the period of accident. Hence this complaint has been necessitated.

The opposite parties inspite of acceptance of notice from this Forum has neither filed version nor has contested the matter. Hence opposite parties were set exparte.

The following issues arise for consideration:

1. Whether the opposite parties have received any amount as alleged in the complaint?

2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

3. Whether the complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed?

Points (i) to (iii):- The hypothecation agreement Ext. P5 entered into between the opposite parties and the complainant on 31.01.2007 reveals that the vehicle mentioned in the complaint has been hypothecated for an amount of Rs. 2,20,000/-. Ext. P1 proves the payment of one thousand on 31.03.2008, Rs. 5,234/- on 30.06.2008 and Rs. 20,500/- on 27.08.2008. The complainant has produced Ext. P4 which is the status report as on 27.09.2008. The complainant has sworn that he had remitted a total amount of Rs. 79,073/- including bulk remittance of an amount of Rs. 20,500/- paid on 25.08.2008. The complainant has not been cross examined and hence his affidavit stands unchallenged. The complainant has further pleaded that Ext. P3 is the copy of the receipt of insurance payment of Rs. 1,40,000/- by the opposite party. The opposite parties have never turned up to contest the same or deny the allegations levelled against them. In the absence of the same and since the allegations in the complaint stand uncontroverted, this Forum come to the conclusion that the complainant is not liable to pay any further amount towards the loan.

In the result, the complaint is allowed. Complainant is found not liable to pay any amount to the opposite parties on account of the Ext. P5 hypothecation agreement. The opposite parties shall also pay an amount of Rs. 2,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 1,000/- towards costs of the proceedings. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of the order failing which the entire amount shall carry interest @ 12%.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 30^th day of June 2009.

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

C.C. No. 224/2008

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

NIL

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Copy of receipt dated 30.04.2008 issued by opposite party.

P2 - Copy of letter dated 09.09.2008.

P3 - Copy of receipt of cheque.

P4 - Copy of status report as on 27.09.2008.

P5 - Copy of hypothecation agreement dated 31.01.2007

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

PRESIDENT