DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 26th day June, 2023
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member
Date of Filing 26/04/2022
CC -71/2022
Muhammed Musthafa,
S/o Modeen kutti,
Pallippuram Moonnekkar Mosque,
Karimba-1
Karimba, Palakkad -678597.
(Adv.Jockin. A. Pereira ) - Complainant
V/s
1.M/s. Tata Motors Finance Ltd,
TMFC Thrissur -680 020.
2.The Managing Director,
M/s Tata Motors Finance Ltd,
TMFL,Thrissur -680 020.
3.The Authorised Signatory /Authorised Officer,
Tata Motor Finance Limited,
TMFL, Thrissur.
(By Adv. Viju. K. Raphael)
4.Aleema Musthafa,
W/o Muhammed Mustafa,
Pallippuram,
Karimba, Karimba -1
Moonnekkar Mosque, - Opposite parties
Palakkad -678 597.
(Ex-parte)
O R D E R
By Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member.
- Pleadings of the Complainant in brief.
The complainant availed a hire purchase loan of Rs. 771495/-from the opposite party finance Company (OPs 1,2,&3) on 31/01/2021.His allegation is that the loan amount was not fully disbursed to him. The company retained Rs. 80,000/-which was later adjusted towards expenses, charges, primary instalments etc.
Another allegation is that the opposite party company obtained several blank papers, signed by the complainant and 4th opposite party and copy of loan papers were not given to the complainant inspite of repeated requests.
According to the complainant, he was regularly paying the instalments of Rs.19,122/-. The opposite party company started threatening to seize the vehicle by sending goondas to his house. On 15/11/2021, the complainant received a notice asking him to clear the arrears of Rs. 56109.59 and expenses and to surrender the vehicle. The complainant further allege that the opposite party company hasn't given any repayment schedule to him and have been charging exorbitant interest and other charges.
On 08/04/2022, the opposite party company sent some goondas to his house to seize the vehicle.
Aggrieved by this he filed this complaint seeking orders to restrain the opposite party company from seizing the vehicle and allowing a compensation of Rs. 200000/-.
- Notices were issued to the opposite parties. OPs 1,2&3 entered appearance and filed their version jointly, denying all allegations. They also contended that this Commission is not having jurisdiction to try this case for the following reasons.
1. As per the agreement signed at the time of availing the loan, both parties had agreed to confer exclusive jurisdiction to Mumbai Courts in the matter of claims or disputes arising out of the loan agreement.
2. The arbitration clause in the said agreement.
3. The complainant is not a consumer under the CP Act -2019 as the loan was availed for commercial purpose.
Opposite party 4 didn't enter appearance and hence was set ex-parte.
3) Issues involved.
The following issues are framed in this case based on the pleadings of the complainant and the opposite parties.
1.Whether the complainant is a consumer under CP Act?
2.Whether the interest & various charges levied by the OPs under various heads were in accordance with the terms and conditions of the loan agreement?
3.Whether the demand made by the OPs to pay the balance loan amount &surrender of vehicle amounts to deficiency in service on their part?
4.Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties ?
5.Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed?
6.Reliefs as to cost & compensation.
4) The complainant didn't file proof affidavit or mark any documents as evidence. Opposite parties 1,2&3 filed proof affidavit and marked Ex. B1 as evidence which is the loan account statement of the complainant showing full particulars of the loan granted and the repayment, charges collected etc.
Issue 1.
The question of whether the complainant is a consumer as per the CP Act decided in favour of the complainant as Commercial Activity refers only to "large scale corporate activities "and not the normal livelihood activities of the complainant, for earning livelihood.
Issues 2,3,4,5&6
The complainant failed to file proof affidavit and mark any document as evidence inorder to prove his pleadings. The document marked by OPs is only the loan account statement of the complainant showing all the details of the loan account. It shows all particulars including the charges collected, interest charged, repayment schedule, overdues etc. In the absence of any counter/objections to this, we are not in a position to understand which are the particulars, the complainant wanted to disagree. Further it can be seen that the repayments have not been regular as claimed by the complainant. Hence the actions by the opposite parties to recover the dues can't be seen as deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties.
5) As complainant complainant failed to prove a prima-facie case against the opposite
parties the complaint is dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case the parties are directed to bear their respective costs.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 26th day June, 2023.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Documents marked from the side of the complainant :Nil.
Documents marked from the side of Opposite party :
Ext. B1: Loan account statement of the party.
Witness examined : Nil
Cost : Nil
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
