Kerala

Wayanad

CC/53/2013

Rajesh, Thinnakkathodiyil, Kattayad, Thovarimala Post, - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. Mahindra and Mahindra Finance, 2nd Floor Thottathil Complex, Chulliyode Post, - Opp.Party(s)

17 Jun 2015

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
CIVIL STATION ,KALPETTA
WAYANAD-673122
PHONE 04936-202755
 
Complaint Case No. CC/53/2013
 
1. Rajesh, Thinnakkathodiyil, Kattayad, Thovarimala Post,
Sulthan Bathery.
Wayanad
Kerala.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. M/s. Mahindra and Mahindra Finance, 2nd Floor Thottathil Complex, Chulliyode Post,
Sulthan bathery.
Waynad
Kerala
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Jose V. Thannikode PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Renimol Mathew MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. Chandran Alachery MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
ORDER

By Sri. Chandran Alachery, Member:

 

The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the Opposite Party to release the Complainant's vehicle to the Complainant, to give compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-, to give Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony and to direct the Opposite Party to re-schedule the repayment of the loan for further period from the release of the vehicle, to restrain the Opposite Party from disposing and alienating the vehicle and to pay cost of the proceedings.

 

2. Complaint in brief:- The Complainant purchased a new Tata Indica Vista Car and the Opposite party granted loan over the vehicle for a sum of Rs.3,83,000/- to the Complainant. As per loan agreement the Complainant shall repay the amount in 48 monthly instalments from 6th April 2011 onwards. Immediately after the delivery of vehicle, the Opposite party started demanding the instalments. The Complainant could not register the vehicle. So the Opposite Party repossessed the vehicle. Thereafter, the Opposite Party did not accept the instalments from the Complainant. The Opposite Party then issued a notice to the Complainant demanding the amount and threatened the Complainant that the Opposite Party will sell the vehicle. Complainant then informed his willingness to remit the amount and ready to take back the vehicle but Opposite Party denied it. The Opposite Party had left the vehicle in open yard without any protection. The vehicle had considerally diminished its value. The act of Opposite party amounts to deficiency of service.

 

3. On receipt of complaint, notice was issued to Opposite Party and Opposite Party appeared before the forum and filed version. In the version of Opposite Party, Opposite Party contended that the vehicle is purchased by the complainant is for commercial purpose. In the agreement, there is clause for arbitration and this Forum have no jurisdiction. The loan agreement was executed on 06.04.2011 and the instalments become due on the 5th day of every month. If the amount is not paid on that day, the delayed period of payment attracts additional finance charges. So far the Complainant has paid only one instalment on 29.06.2011. Since the Complainant has continuously defaulted the payment of instalments, the Opposite Party send notice to the Complainant for making payment. Then the Complainant surrendered his vehicle by himself before the Opposite Party promising to clear the dues within 45 days. The Opposite Party never repossessed the vehicle. The Complainant permitted the Opposite Party to dispose the vehicle and promised to return documents pertaining to the vehicle. The vehicle was put in auction and the bid was confirmed infavour of one Abhilash. K.K, but thereafter cancelled the auction. There is no deficiency of service from the part of Opposite party.

 

4. On perusal of complaint, version and documents the Forum raised the following points for consideration.

1. Whether there is deficiency of service from the part of Opposite party?

2. Relief and cost.

 

5. Point No.1:- The Complainant filed proof affidavit and is examined as PW1 and documents are marked as Exts.A1 to A3. The Opposite party also filed proof affidavit and is examined as OPW1 and Opposite Party's documents are marked as Exts.B1 to B3. On Complainant's side, the commission report is marked as Ext.C1. Ext.A1 is the pre-sale notice send to the Complainant by the Opposite party. Ext.B1 is the loan agreement entered in to between the Complainant and the Opposite Party. PW1 is the father of Complainant and PW1 deposed before the Forum that PW1 knows that the Complainant handed over the vehicle by himself to the Opposite party due to the inability to remit the installments. This statement of PW1 support the contention of Opposite Party. As per Ext.B2 document, it is seen that the Complainant gave the letter to the Opposite Party stating that he surrendered the vehicle and he is ready to take back the vehicle within 45 days. This Ext.B2 document is against the contention of Complainant that the Opposite party had forcefully repossessed the vehicle from his custody. PW1 admitted the Ext.B2 document but stated that the Complainant was forced to write such document. But the Complainant had not prefer any Complaint against Opposite party by creating a false document by Opposite Party The Complainant himself stated that he could not repay the installments due to the non-registration of the vehicle and financial stringency. When a person avails vehicle loan and agreed to repay it in installments, he is bound to repay it as per terms and conditions. The non-registration of the vehicle is not due to the fault of Opposite party. The financier is entitled to get finance amount as per agreement. If default is there, the financier is at liberty to repossess the vehicle. But in this case, the Forum found that the Complainant himself, surrendered the vehicle to the Opposite Party and issued Ext.B2 document. The Complainant did not act upon as per Ext.B2 document. The Complainant did not take any action when he received Ext.A1 notice. On analysing the entire evidence, the Forum found that there is no deficiency of service from the side of Opposite party. Point No.1 is found accordingly.

 

6. Point No.2:- Since point No.1 is found against the Complainant, the Complainant is not entitled to get cost and compensation.

 

In the result the complaint is dismissed.

 

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 17th day of June 2015.

Date of Filing:14.03.2013.

PRESIDENT :Sd/-

MEMBER :Sd/-

MEMBER :Sd/-

/True Copy/

 

Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

 

APPENDIX.

 

Witness for the complainant:

 

PW1. Rajan Mason

 

 

Witness for the Opposite Parties:

 

OPW1. Devanand Branch Manager, Mahindra Finance, Sulthan Bathery

 

 

Exhibits for the complainant:

 

A1. Copy of Letter. dt:04.09.2011.

A2. Vehicle Delivery Acknowledgement Note. dt:07.04.2011.

A3. Power of Attorney. dt:16.03.2013.

 

Exhibits for the opposite Parties.

 

B1. Copy of Statement of Account. dt:20.02.2014.

(Contd..... 5)

- 5 -

 

B2. Copy of Letter. dt:18.08.2011.

B3. Statement.

 

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Jose V. Thannikode]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Renimol Mathew]
MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MR. Chandran Alachery]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.