PBEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 4th day of February 2010
Filed on : 29-10-2010
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member. Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member
C.C. No.572/2010
Between
Deepu M.S. : Complainant
Moolayil house, Mudavoor P.O., (By Adv. Tom Joseph,
Vazhappilly, Muvattupuzha. Court road, Muvattupuzha)
And
1. M/s. Shriram City Union : Opposite parties
Finance Ltd, 221, (By Adv. R. Premchand
Royapettah High road, Mechoor Lane, Near Lakshmi
Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. Hospital, Diwan’s road,
Ernakulam-16.)
2. M/s. Shriram City Union
Finance Ltd.,
Kannamparambil Building,
Mudavoor P.O., Muvattupuzha.
O R D E R
A Rajesh, President.
The case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant availed himself of a vehicle loan for Rs. 39,000/- from the opposite parties for his motorcycle bearing Reg. No. KL-17E-4658. The loan No. is ANM 3701. As per the repayment schedule issued to the complainant he has to pay Rs. 1,538/- as EMI for 36 months. The complainant entrusted 36 cheque leaves of Urban Bank Ltd., Muvattupuzha to the opposite parties. Out of the said 36 cheques, three EMI’s were collected from the complainant’s bank account. Altogether he paid Rs. 43,744/-. Though the balance amount due to the opposite parties is Rs. 11,548/- they are now demanding Rs. 34,000/- for closing the loan account. The complainant had informed his willingness to pay Rs. 11,548/- along with bank interest payable as per the rate prescribed in the money lender’s act. But the opposite parties had sent goondas to the complainant’s house and they threatened the female family members with abusive words. The act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service. The complainant is entitled to get the loan termination letter (NOC) and other connected documents having paid the actual amount of Rs. 11,548/- along with the interest prescribed in the money lender’s Act which is due together with costs of the proceedings. Hence this complaint.
2. The version of the opposite parties.
The complainant and the opposite party entered into an agreement on 24-03-2007for availing a vehicle loan of Rs. 39,000/- repayable in 36 instalments. As per the agreement the complainant has a liability to pay a sum of Rs. 200/- each on dishonor of cheque. The complainant should have cleared the entire dues on or before April 2010. The complainant is also liable to pay overdue charges for the instalments he had not paid for the same on due date. The complainant is not entitled to get the loan termination letter (NOC) from the opposite parties. The complainant has suppressed the material fact in this complaint. Out of the 36 cheques issued to the opposite party on 29 occasions the cheques were dishonoured for lack of funds in the account. The complainant never approached the opposite party to clear the dues in terms of the agreement. As per the record a sum of Rs. 24,244/- is still due from the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. rThe opposite parties request to dismiss the complaint.
3. No oral evidence was adduced by the complainant. Exts. A1 series (19 in numbers) was marked on the side of the complainant. The witness for the opposite party was examined as DW1. Exts. B1 to B4 were marked on their side. Heard the counsel for the parties.
4. The points that came up for consideration are
i. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the loan
termination letter (NOC) and other connected documents
having paid the amount of Rs. 11,548/- along with
interest prescribed under the Money Lenders Act. Till due
date?
ii. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the costs of the
proceedings?
5. Point No. i. Ext. B2 is the loan-cum-hypothecation agreement entered into between the complainant and the opposite parties. As per Ext. B2 the complainant agreed to repay the loan amount of Rs. 39,000/- in 36 instalments of Rs. 1,538/- each. As per the agreement the complainant is liable to pay the EMI on or before 7th of every month. Ext. A1 series goes to show that the complainant failed to comply with the above condition more over Ext. B3 series goes to show that 9 cheques issued by the complainant were dishonored for lack of fund in the account. Admittely as per Ext. B2 agreement the complainant is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 200/- each on dishonour of the cheques and also liable to pay overdue charges for the instalments where he has not paid on due date. Ext. B4 is the account statement of the complainant. The complainant failed to prove any anomaly in the account statement. Moreover he has not mounted the box to substantiate his contentions which partially goes to show that the averments of the complainant are not well sustained. Hence not necessarily to be contested and unproved with the present situation of the case talks about. In the above circumstances we are not to hold that the opposite party has deviated from Ext. B2 agreement and demanded exorbitant amount from the complainant. For reasons stated above the complainant having failed to sustain his grounds to convince this forum of the averments raised and for the aforesaid reasons stated above no justifiable cause is before us but not to dismiss this complaint. We do so. For the findings above the 2nd point for costs is not necessarily to be explained for dismissal.
pronounced in the open Forum on this the 4th day of February 2010
Sd/- A Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member
Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s Exhibits :
Ext. A1series : Temporary receipts
:
Opposite party’s Exhibits :
Ext. B1 : Letter of authorization
B2 : Loan cum Hypothecation
Agreement
B3 : Copies of cheque
B4 : Statement of account
as on 29/11/2010
Depositions:
DW1 : Smitha A.J.
