D.O.F:22/03/2021
D.O.O:30/03/2023
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC.No.69/2021
Dated this, the 30th day of March 2023
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Madhava. B, (aged 38 years),
S/o Mahalinga Patali,
Hindu, Landholder,
R/at Baikunje House,
Pallathadka P.O, : Complainant
Kasaragod Taluk,Kasaragod District
Kerala- 671551
(Adv. Shivashankar Bhat)
And
- Muthoot Capital Services,
Muthoot Towers, M.G. Road,
Kochi – 682035
- Muthoot Capital Services, : Opposite Parties
Branch Office, Perla,
P.O.Perla, Manjeshwar Taluk,
Kasaragod District – 671552
(Adv. Babu Chandran. K)
ORDER
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
The complaint is filed on the ground of service deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party.
The facts of this case in brief is as follows: The complainant purchased a motor bike (Regd.No. KL 14 Q 8891), by obtaining a loan from the opposite parties on 20.02.2015 and repaid the above said loan by the way of EMIs of Rs.1,730/-from 06.04.2015 to 23.01.2018, without any default and the detailed entry of the payments were made by the staff of the opposite party in the loan pass book. On receiving the last instalment, the staff of the opposite party endorsed in the loan passbook as “closed on 23.01.2018”. Thereafter on 01.01.2021, when the complainant intended to sell the bike, he noticed that the entry of the hypothecation of the opposite party is not cleared in the RC book. The complainant approached the opposite party No.2, but they refused to issue the clearance certificate. Once the loan account is closed, it is the duty of the opposite parties to issue the clearance certificate immediately without any request, so that the complainant can produce the same before the R T O office. The complainant caused to issue a Regd. Lawyers notice to the opposite parties, but they have not complied with the lawful demands of the complainant nor sent a reply. The non-issuance of the clearance certificate after the closure of the loan amounts to service deficiency on the part of the opposite parties, due to which the complainant suffered mental agony and hardships. Without the loan clearance certificate the complainant is unable to sell the bike and thereby incurred monitory loss. The complainant is a mental patient under medication and the negligent attitude of the opposite parties caused damages to him. Hence this complaint is filed for a direction to the opposite parties to pay compensation and costs.
The opposite parties entered in appearance through their counsel, who filedwritten version.
As per the version of the Opposite parties the complaint is false, frivolous, vexatious and not maintainable in law or on facts. The opposite party admitted that the complainant availed a loan from the opposite party. But the contentions that the complainant was paying the EMIs regularly at the rate Rs.1,730/- from 06.04.2015 to 23.01.2018 and that the loan was closed on 23.01.2018 and that the detailed entry of the payments were made by the staff of the opposite party in the loan pass book and that the staff has endorsed in the pass book as “closed 23.01.2018” etc. are false and denied. It is submitted that the complainant obtained a loan of Rs.45,000/- on 20.02.2015 and as per the loan agreement he had to pay a total of Rs.62,028/- in 36 EMIs of Rs.1,723/-. The complainant was a chronic defaulter who never paid the EMI on stipulated date. The rate of interest was Rs.12.61% per annum and for belated payment of EMIs, a delay interest at the rate of Rs.10/-,per day was also to be paid. On 23.01.2018 he paid Rs.3,460/- towards foreclosure, when an amount of Rs.7,621/- was outstanding balance. So, there is an amount of Rs.3,098/- in short to close the loan. As on 03.05.2021, the complainant is liable to pay Rs.15,267/- to the opposite party. The opposite party is ready to waive some amount and settle the matter for Rs.4,161/- There is no service deficiency on the part of the opposite parties and therefore the complaint is Iiable to be dismissed with costs.
The Complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and documents Ext. A 1 to Ext. A5 are marked. The Ext. A1 is the copy of the RC of the vehicle, Ext. A2 is the Loan Pass Book, Ext. A3 and A4 are copies of Health Cards issued by Father Mullers Hospital, Manglore, Ext. A 5 is the copy of Regd. Lawyers Notice dated 14.01.2021. Another document , which a copy of Unique Disability ID Card produced by the complainant is marked as Ext.A6. The PW 1 is cross examined.
From the side of the Opposite parties, no oral evidence is adduced but theyproduced two documents, namely, a copy of letter dated 12.07.2022 issued by the opposite party to the complainant and the statement of account related to the loan of the complainant.
Based on the pleadings and evidence of the rival parties in this case the following issues are framed for consideration.
1. Whether there is any service deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of all or any of the opposite parties ?
2. If so, what is the relief ?
For convenience, all these issues are considered together.
Here the specific case of the complainant is that he had repaid the entire loan amount by way of EMIs and on receiving the last instalment, the staff of the opposite party endorsed in the loan passbook as “closed on 23.01.2018”. In spite of that the opposite party did not issue loan clearance certificate, so far. The non-issuance of the loan clearance certificate after the closure of the loan amounts to service deficiency on the part of the opposite parties, due to which the complainant suffered mental agony and hardships. Without the loan clearance certificate the complainant is unable to sell the bike and thereby incurred monitory loss.
The opposite party deny the allegations and submit that the complainant was a chronic defaulter who never paid the EMI on stipulated date. The rate of interest was Rs.12.61% per annum and for belated payment of EMIs, a delay interest at the rate of Rs.10/-per day was also to be paid. On 23.01.2018 he paid Rs.3,460/- towards foreclosure, when an amount of Rs.7,621/- was outstanding balance. So, there is an amount of Rs.3,098/- inshort to close the loan. As on 03.05.2021, the complainant is liable to pay Rs.15,267/- to the opposite party.
Admittedly, the complainant obtained a loan of Rs.45,000/- on 20.02.2015 and as per the loan agreement he had to pay a total of Rs.62,028/- in 36 EMIs of Rs.1,723/-. As per the statement of account produced by the opposite party, the first EMI is seen to be paid on 21.02.2015 and the last EMI is seen to be paid on 23.01.2018 by the complainant. The 36thEMI was to be paid on 05.02.2018. But the complainant states that he had paid Rs.3,460/- (including the amount of remaining one EMI) on 23.01.2018 towards foreclosure of the loan. So, as per the case of the complainant, he had paid the entire 36 EMIs. The opposite party also admit the payment of Rs.3,460/- dated 23.01.2018.
The opposite party argue that even though the rate of interest was Rs.12.61% per annum, for belated payment of EMIs, a delay interest at the rate of Rs.10/-per day was also to be paid. On 23.01.2018 he paid Rs.3,460/- towards foreclosure, when an amount of Rs.7,621/- was outstanding balance. But the opposite party did not produce any evidence to show that there was such a provision for collecting such a delay interest at the rate of Rs.10/- per day, as per any agreement between the parties.They did not produce loan sanctioning letter or loan agreement or adduced any reliable evidence to prove that aspect. Also there is no case for the opposite party that they have intimated the complainant about any dues pending in his loan account, at any time prior to the filing of this complaint. They did not even send a reply to the Ext.A5, the Regd. notice dated 14.01.2021.
Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and in the absence of any rebuttal evidence, this commission is of the view that the complainant is not liable to pay any amount towards the above mentioned loan. Instead, the opposite party is liable to issue the loan clearance certificate to him. The non issuance of the clearance certificate after the closure of the loan amounts to service deficiency on the part of the opposite parties, due to which the complainant suffered mental agony and hardships.
The complainant submits that without the loan clearance certificate, it is not possible to clear the hypothecation of the opposite parties over his vehicle Regd. No. KL 14 Q 8891 and to sell the bike and due to that he incurred monitory loss. The complainant also submits that he is a mental patient under medication and the negligent attitude of the opposite parties caused damages to him.
The complainant estimate the damages caused to him to a tune of Rs.50,000/-. But there is no documentary evidence for that. Considering all the above aspects, this commission is of the view that an amount of Rs.20,000/- would be a reasonable amount of compensation in this case and both the opposite parties jointly and severally liable to pay that amount to the complainant.
In the result the complaint is allowed, directing the opposite parties to issue the loan clearance certificate, so as to enable the complainant to clear the hypothecation of the opposite parties over his vehicle Regd. No. KL 14 Q 8891.The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) towards litigation to the complainant.
Time for compliance is 30 days from receipt of copy of this judgment.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibit
A1: Copy of RC
A2: Loan pass book
A3: Copy of Health Card
A4: Copy of Health Card
A5: Lawyer’s notice
A6: Unique Disability ID
Witness cross examined
PW1: Madhava. B
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/
