By Sri. A.S. Subhagan, Member:

                This is a complaint preferred  under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.

2. Facts of the case:-  The Complainant is the RC owner of the vehicle KL-12-F-237, 2011 model Mahindra Jeep, which was purchased by him for the purpose of his family. Later, the vehicle was financed from the Opposite Party, even though the Complainant was seeking to get finance from the SBI Sulthan Bathery.  Knowing this, the staff of the Opposite Party approached the Complainant and tempted the Complainant to avail the loan from the Opposite Party. They  offered very lower rate of interest than that of the erstwhile financiers and also assured that no penal interest or other  illegal charges would be levied on the Complainant. Further, they stated that the Opposite Party is originally from Sulthan Bathery and so they could show maximum leniency towards the Complainant. Going by the temptations, the Complainant  consented for taking the loan from the Opposite Party.  One Mr. Manoharan, S/o. A. P. Krishnan, Arattil House, Kuppadi post was also stood as surety.   The Complainant  availed a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- as loan   and the Opposite  Party had taken from the Complainant a sum of Rs. 6,000/- as documentation charge and other charges. The agreed interest rate was yearly 18% and which is not compoundable. The Complainant was forced to sign several papers at the  instance    of the Opposite Party on 05-04-2021 and the said   sum of   Rs.1,50,000/-  less   Rs.6,000/- i.e.,  Rs.1,44,000/- was paid to   the    Complainant   by the Opposite Party in cash. The said amount with  interest    was agreed to   be paid    to the Opposite Party as EMI and the Complainant was directed to pay the amount from 05-05-2021. The total months for repayments were orally stated to the Complainant as 24 months. The monthly installment was orally directed to be paid as Rs.10,250/-.  The   Opposite Party  had   agreed   to   give   the   Complainant   the copy  of the loan agreement, the repayment chart and    original  RC    and insurance  policy, after the loan is endorsed in the said RC and the insurance policy   within 2 weeks of the disbursal of the loan amount.  The said promise was not yet   complied    by the Opposite Party.  The Complainant has remitted Rs. 10,250/- each regularly and punctually on every month for five months and even though the Complainant  approached the  Opposite Party at its office at Sulthan Bathery  several  times for the original  RC,  insurance policy and the loan repayment chart as well as the copy of the loan agreement,  the Opposite Party  evaded from the due demand by some lame excuses.   Thereafter, when the COVID-19  hit the    agriculture   and   other   income of the Complainant, the monthly repayment for two months could not be effected by the

Complainant and in the meanwhile, the Opposite Party  repossessed  the vehicle

without any prior notice to the Complainant, by filing a false and fabricated order,

alleged to have been obtained from an Arbitrator and submitted the same to the

Hon’ble Commercial Court,  Sulthan Bathery. It is humbly submitted that no notice of default or notice of appointment of the  Arbitrator, nor the notice of the  case filed

by the Opposite Party before the Hon’ble Commercial Court, Sulthan Bathery were  served on the Complainant herein. The said order was obtained by the Opposite

Party, behind the Complainant.  After   repossessing   the   vehicle   illegally, the

Opposite Party  started to blackmail the Complainant and his surety and stated

that if the Complainant has not paid them Rs.3,00,000/- further, they would put the

vehicle on option at their own whims and fancies and for which no notice would be

served on the Complainant. When the matter was discussed, at the instance of the

advocate of the Opposite Party, they    finally   stated   that  unless  and until they

are getting Rs. 2,30,000/- the vehicle would not be released.   It is humbly submitted that the period of loan will be terminated only on 05-05-2023 even then the Opposite Party has seized the vehicle to the prejudice of the Complainant herein. The following deficiency of service and unfair trade practice are there on the part of the Opposite Party herein.

(a) The Opposite Party has not issued the copy of the loan agreement and the

repayment chart of the loan to the  Complainant.

(b) The Opposite Party has illegally retained the original RC and insurance

policy of the vehicle and even the Photostat copy having the endorsement of the finance

of the Opposite Party was not also furnished.

(c) The Opposite Party  suppressed  the  material  facts  and  misguided the

Hon’ble Commercial Court to obtain an unfavourable order in his favour and by

that order, the vehicle of the Complainant was seized and detained by them illegally.

                (d)  The  Arbitrator was appointed by the Opposite Party at his  whims and fancies and  that too, to the prejudice of the Complainant.  Prior  notice was not issued to the Complainant in this regard.  Further the Arbitrator was appointed unilaterally by the Opposite Party,  which is not binding on the Complainant.

          (e)  No prior  notice was issued by the Opposite Party with regard to the re-call of the loan,  which is premature in nature.

          (f)  The Opposite Party has not considered the grave situation of COVID-19  but  it has misutilised the situation in his favour,  which is detrimental to the Complainant herein.

          (g)  The present claim of the Opposite Party is highly exorbitant,  since   they are in upper hands as the vehicle  is somehow seized illegally by the Opposite Party.

          (h)  The rate of interest  is also  highly  excessive,    which is    against the

provisions of  law of the land in this regard and further the Opposite Party has charged exorbitant amount on other illegal grounds and heads.

          (i)  The Opposite Party has  retained the original RC and insurance policy without any legal basis,  which caused  irreparable loss and damage to the Complainant.

          (j)  The Opposite Party has not issued proper  receipts to the Complainant for the payments done by him in this regard.

          3. The  above said acts of the  Opposite Party are nothing but deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party,  by which the Complainant is up to irreparable loss and damage,  which cannot be  compensated in terms of money.  Since the vehicle is illegally seized by the Opposite Party,  the user of the vehicle was denied to the Complainant and his family members and they had to  hire other vehicle for their  travelling  purposes.  Further,  the illegal seizure of the vehicle has made a lot of  shame to the Complainant and his family.  Even  though the said loss,  agony and shame cannot be compensated in terms of money,  the Complainant is limiting the same to Rs.50,000/-  only.    By the above said deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party,  the Complainant has decided  to terminate the loan by paying the legal amount to the Opposite Party but it has denied the proposal.  The  cause of action was  on 05.04.2021 when the Complainant was forced to put his signature and thereafter, on each date when the Opposite Party is committing  deficiency of service.  The Complainant is ready  and willing to deposit the legal amount in the above said loan amount with the Opposite Party in this Hon’ble Commission for the release of the said vehicle.  A separate interim application is filed in this regard along with this complaint before this  Hon’ble Commission.

          4. Hence it is humbly  prayed  that this Hon’ble  Commission may be pleased to  direct the Opposite Party,

1.  To accept the balance legal amount with the agreed  interest rate i.e, 18% per annum and to terminate the loan endorsement of the  vehicle KL 12F 237 Mahindra Jeep.
2. On its failure,  allow the Complainant to deposit the said amount before this Hon’ble Commission and to return the vehicle KL 12F 237 to the Complainant forthwith.
3. To give back the original RC and insurance policy of the vehicle KL 12F 237 to the Complainant.
4. To pay the sum of Rs.50,000/-  as compensation to the Complainant.
5. To pay a sum of Rs.25,000/-  being the cost of the complaint.
6. To grant such other further relief to which the Complainant may pray for and this  Hon’ble Commission deems fit to grant.
7. To grant the cost of the complaint to the  Complainant.

          5. Summons  was served  upon the Opposite Party for appearance before the Commission.  They  appeared but did not file version and hence they were set  ex-parte.  From the side of the Complainant,  chief affidavit was filed,  documents,  Exts.A1 and A2 were marked and after hearing the matter in arguments of  both the parties,  on 15.11.2023,  the case was posted for orders.

          6. On the basis of the complaint, Documents marked and the facts and circumstances of the case including the arguments raised by both the parties in hearing,  Commission raised the following  points for consideration.

1. Whether there has been any deficiency in service/unfair trade practice from the  part of the Opposite Parties?
2. If so, relief and cost.

7. Point No.1:-  The case of the Complainant is that he had availed a loan of Rs.1,50,000/- from the Opposite Party in respect of his vehicle No.KL 12F 237 (2011 model).  The agreed  rate of interest was 18% not compoundable.  The Complainant was paid only Rs.1,44,000/-  after deducting charges  of Rs. 6,000/-  on 05.04.2021.  The Complainant was orally directed to repay the EMI at the rate of Rs.10,250/-  ie  24 months with effect from 05.05.2021.  Though agreed, the Opposite Party had not given the copy of the loan agreement,  repayment chart,  the original  Registration Certificate   insurance policy etc.. after endorsement in the  Registration Certificate to the Complainant. The Complainant  had  remitted  five EMIs.  Due to Covid Pandamic,  the Complainant could not pay two EMIs but without prior notice,  the Opposite Party repossessed the vehicle after getting an order illegally from the Arbitrator/Commercial Court, Sulthan Bathery.  Now  the Opposite Party is demanding  Rs.2,30,000/- and threatens the Complainant that otherwise the  vehicle would not be released and which should be sold in public auction.  According to the Complainant,  the above acts of the Opposite Party amount to deficiency in service/unfair trade practice and hence this complaint with  prayers.  In the meantime,  IA 583/2022 was filed  by the Complainant.  During arguments in the IA,  the Counter Petitioner/Opposite Party had submitted that if the Petitioner were ready to give Rs.2,00,000/-  towards dues the Opposite Party/Counter Petitioner should release the vehicle to the Petitioner and the Petitioner was also amenable to this proposal and hence the IA was allowed directing the Respondent/Opposite Party to release the vehicle bearing  Registration No.KL 12F 237 in running  condition to the Petitioner/Complainant on receipt of Rs.2,00,000/-  towards the alleged dues.  Ext.A2  produced and  marked by the Complainant shows that  he had complied his part of  order in the above IA by paying Rs.2,00,000/- which has been received by the counsel for the Opposite Party on 20.10.2022.  It is also revealed that the vehicle has been released by the  Opposite Party to the Complainant.  In fact the case was instituted by the Complainant mainly seeking release of the vehicle.  The contention mainly raised by the Opposite Party was that the vehicle was hypothecated in their favour by the Complainant.  As per the order in IA 583/2022 the matter was settled and the Complainant had paid the  entire dues of  Rs.2,00,000/-  as agreed  by the Opposite Party and the vehicle was released by the Opposite Party to the Complainant.  Moreover,  a memo was filed by the Opposite Party on 03.04.2023 in which it has been stated that the matter was settled and the Complainant had agreed to withdraw the complaint.  But it is seen that the complaint was not withdrawn by the Complainant.  So,  Commission is of the view that,  as the matter in issue is  amicably settled complying the order in IA 583/2022,  now no cause of action exists to be  decided on merit and hence the complaint has become  infructuous not requiring  any further direction to the  parties to the case.

8. Hence, it is  seen that  decisions on point No.1  and 2 have no relevance.

          In the result, the complaint is dismissed without cost.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me

and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 22^nd   day of December 2023.

          Date of filing:28.09.2022.

                                                                             PRESIDENT    :    Sd/-

                                                                                       MEMBER        :    Sd/-

                                                                             MEMBER        :    Sd/-

APPENDIX.

Witness for the Complainant:

PW1.            Ajith Kumar.                          Complainant.                 

Witness for the Opposite Party:

Nil.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

 A1.      Copy of Certificate of Registration.         

A2.        Receipt.                      dt:  20.10.2022.                                                     

Exhibit for the Opposite Party:

Nil.   

                                                                                                PRESIDENT:  Sd/-

                                                                                                 MEMBER    :   Sd/-

                                                                                                MEMBER    :   Sd/-