DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PALAKKAD
Dated this the 27th day of July, 2022
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya A., Member
: Sri. Krishnankutty N.K.,Member
Date of filing: 24/09/2018
CC/116/2018
K.M.Mathew, - Complainant
S/o. Nainan Mathew,
Kaduvettoor House,
Kumaramputhur (PO),
Mannarkaad,Palakkad- 678 583.
(Adv.A.V.Ravi)
Vs
1. M/s.IKF Finance Limited,
40-1-144,4th Floor,
Corporate Centre, Vijayavada.
2. M/s.IKF finance Limited - Opposite Parties
AMA Building, 14/675,1st Floor
Kalmandapam, Palakkad 678 001.
(Adv. N.Rajesh)
O R D E R
By Sri. Krishnankutty N.K., Member
Pleadings of the complainant in brief.
1. The complainant availed a vehicle loan of Rs.2,75,000/- from the opposite parties for purchase a 2009 model Mahindra Bolero Camper. The loan, along with interest was to be paid in 30 monthly installments of Rs.12,000/- each from 25.08.2013 and was to be concluded on 25.01.2016. He repaid Rs.192,000/- till 25.01.2016.
The Complainant’s first allegation is that the inertest charged on the loan is exorbitant and not in accordance with law.
The second allegation is that opposite party appropriated Rs.530,000/- towards loan account from his Savings Bank Account with State Bank Of India, Kumaramputhur Branch on 18.03.2018 by using a blank signed cheque which he had given at the time of availing the loan.
According to the complainant, the opposite party had not given him the extract of loan account with entries till 31.03.2018. The complainant issued a legal notice to opposite party on 06.04.2018 asking for the account statement as well as refund of the amount deducted from his Savings Bank account with the State Bank of India, Kumaramputhur which was replied on 04.06.2018 by the opposite party explaining their side.
2. Notices were issued to opposite parties. They entered appearance and filed their version. As per the version, the interest charged on the complainant’s loan account is in accordance with law. Regarding the appropriation of Rs.530,000/- from the savings bank account of the complainant, their version is that the complainant made regular payment upto 16 installments, but balance 14 installments are pending. Thereafter, the complainant approached the company on 2018 March, and sought for closure of the vehicle loan. The complainant and opposite parties mutually agreed to settle the account for an amount of Rs.530,000/- and the opposite party accepted the cheque for the same amount and the loan account was cleared. The opposite parties sought for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Issues
1. Whether the cheque issued was a blank cheque or one issued by
complainant for settling the loan account.
2. Whether there is any Deficiency in service on the part of opposite
parties.
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to any reliefs.
4. Reliefs, if any.
4. The complainant filed proof Affidavit and marked Exhibits A1-A3. The
complainant was examined as PW1. The opposite parties filed proof
affidavit on 16.03.2020.
Issue No.1
5. Main contention of the complainant is that the opposite party
presented a blank cheque that was offered as security without the consent of
the complainant. Complainant was examined as PW1. In his testimony in
page (2), he admits that he had defaulted14 installments and is bound to
pay balance amount. In page 4 of the deposition he has admitted execution
of the cheque . Even if we have to check whether the amounts levied were
exorbitant and usurious, the complainant has not produced any documents
to substantiate and prove his case.
6. Hence we find that the story of the opposite party regarding issuance of
cheque by the complainant to settle the loan account is more probable. We
therefore hold that the cheque for Rs.530,000/- was issued by the
complainant to settle the loan account.
Issue Nos. 2 to 4
7. In view of the finding in issue no.1 we hold that there is no deficiency in service on the party of opposite parties and that the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for. In the facts and circumstance of the case we direct the parties to bear their respective costs.
This complaint is accordingly dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 27th day of July, 2022.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya A
Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K
Member
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext. A1– Vehicle loan and repayment details issued by the opposite party
dated 27.08.2013
Ext.A2- Notice sent by the complainant to the opposite party dated 06.04.2018
Ext.A3-Reply send by opposite party’s counsel to the complainant dated 04.06.2018.
Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite parties
Nil
Witness examined from complainant’s side:- Complainant was examined as PW1.
Witness examined from opposite party’s side:- NIL
Cost: Nil
Forwarded/By Order,
Assistant Registrar
