IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Monday the 30th day of May, 2016
Filed on 12.05.2015
Present
- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.142/2015
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Sri. Rajeev 1. M/s. Shriram Equipment Finance Ltd.
Rajeev Bhavanam 39/3223-B, Anand Tower, VRM Road
Pulikkunnu P.O. Kochi
Kudassanadu
Alappuzha District 2. M/s. Shriram Equipment Finance Ltd.
(By Adv. P.S. Pradeep) Having its Head Office at 303-306
Samriddhi Building, V.N. Purav Marg
Next to Chembur S.T. Stand, Chembur
Mumbai – 400 071
(By Adv. K.T. Anishmon – for opposite
parties 1 and 2)
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
The complainant was running the business of renting out heavy equipments like Excavators etc. He availed a loan for an amount of Rs.10 lakhs upon hypothecation of a JCB Excavator. At the time of entering the hypothecation agreement, the terms of repayment agreed upon was 35 equal installments of Rs.38,846/-. After availing the loan, he had been regularly making repayment of the said loan amount. Thus he paid of almost the entire loan amounts. The complainant asked for an account statement showing the remittance, but he was not provided with any account statement. The executives of the opposite party threatened the complainant by stating that they will seize the vehicle if he did not pay Rs.1 lakh within a week. Complainant wanted to know about the statement of account from opposite party. He is not liable to pay the amount claimed by the opposite party. The threatening from the part of the opposite party and the demand of exorbitant interest and the failure to provide the statement of accounts are all deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. Hence the complaint is filed.
2. The version of the opposite parties is as follows:-
The allegation that complainant was not served with a copy of the hypothecation agreement is false and hence denied. The complainant has defaulted in remitting the installments in this loan account. Complainant is having an amount of Rs.7,37,435/- due in his account. Complainant has deliberately defaulted in making the payments due to the opposite party with a intention to cause damage and loss to the opposite party.
3. Complainant was examined as PW1. The documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A3. Opposite party was examined as RW1. The documents produced were marked as Exts.B1 and B2.
4. The points came up for considerations are:-
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief and cost?
5. It is an admitted fact that complainant had availed a loan from the opposite party by hypothecating a JCB. According to the complainant at the time of entering the hypothecation agreement, the terms of the repayment agreed upon was 35 equal installments of Rs.38,846/- commencing from 29.02.2012. The allegation of the complainant is that even though he requested several times, he was not given a copy of the hypothecation agreement specifying rate of interest and EMI and detailed statement of account to the complainant. The opposite party filed version stating that they have issued receipts acknowledging the repayment made by the complainant in his loan account and as per the statement of account dated 30.06.2015 complainant is having an amount of Rs. 7,37,435/- due in his account. In order to substantiate his contention, opposite party produced the statement of accounts as on 30.6.2015 which marked as Ext.B1. On verifying the said document, it is seen that an amount of Rs.7,37,435/- was due from the complainant. Ext.B2 is the statement of account as on 26.11.2015. Ex.A3 series are the receipts, dated 30.9.2013, 17.4.2013, 15.10.2013 and 4.2.2014. Complainant has not produced any other receipts or any documents in order to prove that he has not committed any default in repaying the loan amount. The serious allegation launched against the opposite party was the non furnishing of statement of account and hypothecation agreement with respect to the loan as if had the opposite party furnished those documents, it could be prove that no balance amount is due towards the loan amount. During the pendency of the case, both these documents were produced. The statement of account is not disproved by the complainant. There is no case for the complainant that the reason for the non-payment of the balance amount was due to the non-furnishing of those documents also. Hence the complainant in fact put forwarding a complaint without making prompt payment, alleging that there is no amount due solely for the sake of stating a ground of defect and deficiency in service. In the instant case, the production of statement of account did not improve the case of the complainant and on the other hand it became evident that there is still balance towards the loan. Hence there is no bonafides in the complaint. There is no defect and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
In the result complaint is dismissed.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of May, 2016.
Sd/- Smt.Elizabeth George (President)
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
Sd/- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Rajeev. R. (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Copy of the certificate of registration
Ext.A2 - Copy of the statement
Ext.A3 - Copy of the receipts (4 Nos.)
Evidence of the opposite party:-
Ext.B1 - Copy of the hypothecation agreement
Ext.B2 (1) & (2) - Copy of the statement of accounts dated 30.6.2015 & 26.11.2015
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite party/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
