Kerala

Idukki

CC/15/348

Mr.Joby abraham - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Reliant Hire Purchase Company - Opp.Party(s)

Adv.Gem Korason

29 Nov 2019

ORDER

DATE OF FILING : 27.11.2015

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 29^th day of November, 2019

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

SMT. ASAMOL. P MEMBER

CC NO.348/2015

Between

Complainant : Jomy Abraham, S/o. Abraham,

Velikkakathu House,

Anakkara P.O.,

Idukki.

(By Adv: Gem Korason)

And

Opposite Parties : 1. The Manager,

Reliant Hire Purchase Company,

City Tower Building,

Kattappana P.O., Idukki.

2. The Managing Director,

Reliant Hire Purchase Company,

KJK Estate, A.M. Road,

Kothamangalam P.O.

(Both by Adv: Babichen V. George)

 

O R D E R

 

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

Case of the complainant is that :

 

Complainant availed a vehicle loan of Rs.8,50,000/- from the opposite party in the month of January, 2014, agreed to repay it in 42 instalments at the rate of Rs.26,680/- each. At the time of sanctioning the loan, opposite party insisted the complainant to sign on certain printed forms and also obtained blank signed cheque leaves of the wife of the complainant as security to the loan. Complainant purchased a second hand HGV tipper bearing No.KL-12D-8619, by utilising the amount in the month of October 2014 and entrusted its RC Book to the opposite party for effecting finance noting and also for changing the ownership of the vehicle. It was informed by the opposite party that the RC Book will be returned to the complainant. Thereafter it was known to the complainant

(cont....2)

- 2 -

that the RC Book was directly obtained by the opposite party from the RTO. In the month of December 2014, the tax of the vehicle became due and the complainant approached the opposite party for RC Book, but opposite party sought time for returning the RC Book. As the tax became due, the complainant was unable to ply the vehicle, even then also complainant was continued the payment of EMI without any default. But due to the treatment of his mother, complainant failed to remit some instalments further. Thereafter when the complainant approached the opposite party for remitting the dues, the opposite party had changed huge amount as penal interest without issuing receipts for the same. The opposite party was not turned up to hand over the RC Book of the vehicle, hence the vehicle kept idle. The complainant had paid two instalments by crediting the amount to the account of the opposite party.

 

Complainant further averred that, while the complainant approached the opposite party for getting back the RC Book, for remitting the vehicle tax, the opposite party informed that to entrust the tax amount to them and accordingly the complainant entrusted Rs.25000/- being the tax amount to the opposite party, but opposite party failed to remit the tax amount. The complainant further averred that he paid an amount of Rs.3,15,000/- in the loan account and balance to be paid is only Rs.2,50,000/-. The vehicle kept idle from December, 2014 onwards and it is only the non-issuance of the RC Book by the opposite parties and hence the complainant was failed to remit the loan instalments.

 

The complainant further averred that it was reliably learnt that the police officials had recovered nearly 700 RC Books from the managing director of opposite party and he was charged under the offence of money lending laws in Kerala. It is also came to know that the opposite parties making attempt to forge the blank cheques of the wife of the complainant for making unlawful enrichment from the complainant and hence the complainant is entitled to get these documents back. Now the opposite party is demanding a huge amount as loan dues and trying to take possession of the vehicle forcefully. The complainant has got every right to get back the RC Book of the said vehicle and the act of the opposite party in keeping the RC Book with them is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Under the above circumstances, the complainant

(cont....3)

- 3 -

filed the petition seeking relief such as to direct the opposite parties to entrust the RC Book of the vehicle having No.KL-12D-8619 and declare the complainant that he is not liable to pay overdue charges from December, 2014 and direct the opposite parties to return the cheques along with compensation and cost.

 

Upon notice, opposite parties entered appearance and filed detailed reply version by admitting the issue of vehicle loan to the complainant. Opposite party further contended that, the loan amount is Rs.8,97,000/- divided into 42 equal instalments at the rate of Rs.26,686/-. The 1^st instalment starts on 4.12.2013. The complainant was never regular in loan repayment and it is denied that the RC Book is with the opposite party. The complainant is running the vehicle still and it is not kept idle as stated in the complaint. The opposite party have properly credited all the payments made by the complainant and duly issued receipts for the same.

 

The opposite party further contended that , it is not true that the entrusting of Rs.25000/- for payment of tax and the payment of Rs.3,15,000/- in the loan account. The actual amount paid by the complainant in the loan account is Rs.2,49,880/- as on 23.3.2015 and the outstanding amount is Rs.8,41,452/- as on 30.10.2015. Upon consistent demand, the complainant issued a cheque to the opposite party for Rs.8,40,000/- which was duly bounced for insufficient funds and the opposite party filed a complainant against the complainant under the Negotiable Instruments Act, before JFMC, Kothamangalam as CC 112/16.

 

Opposite party further contended that the complainant is bound to perform his liability as per the contract entered between the complainant and opposite party. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and hence the complainant is liable to be dismissed with cost.

 

Evidence adduced by the complainant by way of proof affidavit. Complainant and one witness, the Joint RTO, Peerumedu was examined as PWs1 and 2. Exts.P1 to P6 marked. Ext.P1 is the copy of RC particulars. Ext.P2(series) are the bills. Ext.P3 is the copy of memo issued by the RTO, Udumbanchola. Ext.P4 is the copy of representation. Ext.P5 is the memo dated 13.7.2016. Ext.P6 is photographs of the vehicle. (cont....4)

- 4 -

From the opposite side, Exts.R1 to R5 produced and marked. Ext.R1 is copy of hire purchase loan agreement. Ext.R2 is sanction letter of loan. Ext.R3 is the loan statement of account as on 21.3.2015. Ext.R4 is the copy of arbitration award dated 25.5.2016. Ext.R5 is copy of execution petition No.329/2016.

 

During the course of trial, complainant filed a petition for directing the opposite party to provide the RC Book. In reply to that petition, opposite party filed an affidavit affirming that the RC Book is not in their custody.

 

Heard both sides.

 

The point for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?

 

The POINT :- We have heard the counsels for both the parties and had gone through the documents. It is an admitted fact that the complainant availed a hire purchase loan of Rs.8,97,000/- from opposite party on 4.11.2013, as loan No.1269/13 agreed to repay it with interest in 42 instalments at the rate of Rs.26,680/-. The total amount along with interest is to be repaid by the complainant in the loan account is Rs.11,20,560/-. On perusing Ext.P2(series) bills, it is seen that complainant remitted Rs.2,00,560/- in the loan account, but opposite party admitted that they received Rs.2,49,880/- from the complainant in the loan account till 23.3.2015. At the same time, eventhough complainant pleaded that he remitted an amount of Rs.3,15,000/- in this account, no corresponding evidence is adduced. In the complaint, complainant averred that the outstanding loan dues is only Rs.2,50,000/-. But the statement of the complainant cannot be considered to a moment, because the actual amount as per the Ext.R1 loan cum hypothecation agreement, the amount to be repaid by the complainant is Rs.8,97,000/- plus interest. It is agreed to be repaid in 42 EMIs at the rate of Rs.26,680/-. On a calculation, it is seen that if the complainant remits the EMIs regularly, he would have to remit Rs.11,20,500/- in the loan account in total. Out of which as per the loan statement, complainant paid Rs.2,49,000/- alone. If we admit the

(cont....5)

- 5 -

 

version of the complainant had paid Rs.3,15,000/- in the account, he is liable to pay more than Rs.8 lakhs and its penal charges.

 

Hence the Forum is on the firm belief that the averment in the complaint regarding the payment of loan amount and its outstanding dues averred by him cannot be believable and it is against the actual facts and against the loan cum hypothecation agreement.

 

Moreover, the complainant failed to adduce any evidence for establishing the version that opposite party held the RC Book and opposite party wilfully evaded from entrusting the RC Book to the complainant.

 

Then regarding the issuance of cheque leaves to the opposite party. It is an admitted fact that one of the cheque issued by the complainant is produced by the opposite party before the bank and it is returned as insufficient funds. Against this opposite party filed a petition under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the JFMC, Kothamangalam. Hence the Forum is not in a position to direct the opposite party to return the cheques to the complainant.

 

On perusing the records, it is further revealed that, an execution petition is pending before the District Court, Thodupuzha as E.P. No.329/2016 (Ext.R5) against the complainant for recovery of the loan dues. The complainant can approach before the District Court, Thodupuzha and contest the execution proceedings and raise his objection therein.

 

On considering the entire material evidence, the Forum is of a considered view that the matter relating the loan dues and charges of penal interest and other charges etc. in the loan account is already under consideration of the District Court, Thodupuzha in the above said Execution Petition and the complainant is having ample chance to challenge these matters there and it is not fair to pass any order to this matter by this Forum. At the same time, the Forum directs the opposite party to issue NOC to the complainant for applying for a new RC Book of

(cont....6)

- 6 -

 

the Tipper lorry, the subject matter of the complaint, within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order to cost or compensation.

 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29^th day of November, 2019

 

Sd/-

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

SMT. ASAMOL. P., MEMBER

 

 

 

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1 - Jomy Abraham.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

DW1 - James M.P.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 - copy of RC particulars.

Ext.P2(series) - the bills.

Ext.P3 - copy of memo issued by the RTO, Udumbanchola.

Ext.P4 - copy of representation.

Ext.P5 - memo dated 13.7.2016.

Ext.P6 - photographs of the vehicle.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Ext.R1 - copy of hire purchase loan agreement.

Ext.R2 - sanction letter of loan.

Ext.R3 - loan statement of account as on 21.3.2015.

Ext.R4 - copy of arbitration award dated 25.5.2016.

Ext.R5 - copy of execution petition No.329/2016.

 

 

Forwarded by Order,

 

 

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT