DATE OF FILING : 24.6.2015

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 27^th day of April, 2017

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

SRI. BENNY. K. MEMBER

CC NO.176/2015

Between

Complainant : Sanal K. R., S/o. Ramankuttiy,

Kattoopparayil House,

Pazhayarikkandam P.O.,

Idukki.

(By Adv: P.A. Suhas)

And

Opposite Parties : 1. SML Motors,

SML Building,

Muvattupuzha Road,

Vengalloor P.O.,

Thodupuzha, Idukki.

2. SML Motors,

Adimali P.O.,

Chottupara, Idukki.

3. Piaggio Vehicles Pvt. Ltd.,

101 B/102 Phinix,

Bund Garden Road,

Opp. Residence Club,

Pune – 411 001.

(All by Adv: Gem Korason)

O R D E R

SRI. BENNY. K. (MEMBER)

          Complainant had availed a loan for Rs.70,000/- from the opposite party to purchase an Ape 3 wheel A/R which was manufactured by the 3^rd opposite party.  He had agreed to repay the amount in 48 monthly instalments of Rs.5450/- each.  Due to mechanical problems, the complainant could not ply the vehicle and made some default in remitting the monthly installments.  The opposite parties fraudulently claimed huge and exorbitant overdue charges and penal interest.  Hence complainant approached before the /Forum for getting a defect free vehicle or get back the money paid and compensation. (cont......2)

- 2 -

          In the written version filed by 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties denied the contention that the opposite party valued the vehicle for Rs.70,000/- and finance was balance amount.  The above opposite party is not having any connection with the finance availed by the complainant.  The down payment of the vehicle is Rs.29999/-.  There is no manufacturing defect as alleged by the complainant.  The service of the vehicle was not properly done.  The vehicle was delivered on 12.3.2013.  After the 1^st service, thereafter no service was done by the complainant as prescribed by the company.  Since the service was not done by the complainant, he had violated the terms of warranty and he is not entitled to get any relief as sought for.  The complainant after full satisfaction, had purchased the vehicle.  The interest rate was specifically stated in the loan agreement and the installments was scheduled, accordingly the complainant had affixed his signature after knowing all these terms and conditions.

          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 evidence consists of oral testimony of PW1 and Ext.P1 marked from the side of complainant.  No oral evidence adduced by opposite parties and Exts.R1 and R2 marked on their side.

          The POINT :-  The complainant had availed a loan of Rs.70000/- from the opposite party to purchase an Ape Autorickshaw which was manufactured by the 3^rd opposite party.  Ext.P1 is copy of RC Book. He had agreed to repay the amount in 48 monthly installments of Rs.5450/- each.  Due to the complaint of the vehicle, he could not remit some installments in time.  The opposite party fraudulently claimed huge interest and overdue charges for the delayed installments, which is a clear deficiency in service.

          In the written version filed by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties, they admitted the contention that the opposite parties valued the vehicle for

(cont......3)

- 3 -

Rs.70000 and the finance was balance amount.  This opposite party is not having any connection with the finance availed by the complainant.  The down payment of the vehicle is Rs.29,999/-.  There is no manufacturing defect as alleged by the complainant.  The service of the vehicle was not properly done.  Ext.R1 is vehicle history card.  The vehicle was delivered on 12.3.2013.  After the 1^st service, thereafter no service was done by the complainant as directed by the company.  Since the service was not done by the complainant, he had violated the terms of the warranty and he is not eligible to get any relief as sought for. Ext.R2 is warranty terms and conditions.

The complainant after full satisfaction, had purchased the vehicle.  The interest rate was specifically stated in the loan agreement and the installments was scheduled accordingly.  From Ext.R1, it reveals that the service was not done properly.  No evidence is adduced to show the manufacturing defect of the vehicle.  In the agreement, complainant is agreed to pay the default charges for the delayed payments.  But the opposite party has not produced or adduced any evidence to show that they can charge huge and exorbitant interest rate as default charge.  It is illegal.  Hence we fix an interest rate of 12% per annum for the defaulted installments for the defaulted period.

          Hence the petition partially allowed.  The opposite party is directed to settle the loan account of the complainant’s vehicle by charging only 12% per annum for the defaulted installments for the defaulted period within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this order.

          Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 27^th day of April, 2017

  Sd/-

                                                                   SRI. BENNY. K., MEMBER

Sd/-

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT (cont......4)

- 4 -

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1 - Sanal K. R.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 - Copy of RC Book.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Ext.R1 - vehicle history card.

Ext.R2 - warranty terms and conditions.

/ Forwarded by Order /

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT