IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 22th day of August, 2022
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No.148/2020 (filed on 01/10/2020)
Petitioner : Shaji john S/o Yohannan, Edakkeriyil
House, Poovanthuruthu P.O, Kottayam,
Pin – 686012.
(Adv.Rejimon V.T.)
Vs.
Opposite parties : 1) Muthoot Vehicles & Asset Finance Ltd,
6th Floor, Mithun Tower, K.P. Vallon
Road, Kadavanthara, Kochi-682020, Rep
By its Managing Director.
(Adv. R. Ajith)
2) Branch Manager, Muthoot Vehicles & Asset Finance Ltd, Purayidathil Building, Chethimattom, Pala – 686575.
(Adv. R. Ajith)
O R D E R
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
The case is filed Under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
The brief of the complaint is as follows,
The complainant had availed a Vehicle Loan from the opposite parties for an amount of Rs.5,80,000/- in 2017 and purchased an EON Car with Registration Number KL-05-AQ-3312. The vehicle loan with number 4170105 PAL/170105 was taken from the second opposite party branch at pala with a monthly payment of Rs.6,300/-. The Complainant had remitted 31 installments out of the 40 without any default. By December 2019, the wife of the complainant was diagnosed with Cancer and was admitted in Medical College Kottayam, and she died in may 2020. Due to these difficulties and the problems relating to Covid Pandemic the complainant was not able to remit the monthly installments, and these factors were intimated to the opposite parties. But the recovery officials of the opposite parties came to the residence of the complainant and threatened and abused him. On 22-09-2020 the complainant agreed to pay 5 out of the 9 pending EMI’s during this month and the remaining 4 EMI’s in the next month. But the opposite parties declined to accept this request and demanded for full payment of the pending EMI’s with interest at once. The opposite parties were trying to confiscicate the vehicle and to sale with a lower price and to gain undue profit. The act of the opposite parties is deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint.
On receipt of the copy of the complaint the opposite parties appeared and filed their version. As per the version of the opposite parties the complainant had availed a vehicle loan for his KL-05AQ3312 EON ERA Car on 28-06-2017. The loan amount was Rs.3,41,000/- with a flat rate interest of 7.54%. The EMI was Rs.6,205 to be paid in 84 installments starting from 13.07.2017. The statement of the complainant that the loan is to be repaid in 40 installments with EMI Rs.6,300/- is not true. There were delay in the cash payment of EMI’s up to 13-12-2019 by the complainant. The remaining EMI’s were paid through NACH. The complainant had not remitted the EMI’s from January 2020. The benefit of moratorium was given to the complainant from 13.04.2020 to 13.08.2020. The opposite parties never declined to accept the payment from the complainant. The opposite parties never threatened or abused the complainant. All other allegations are false and denied.
The complainant failed to appear before the commission to adduce evidence or to file proof affidavit. The documents filed along with the complaint were marked as Exhibits A1 and A2. The opposite parties filed proof affidavit and marked document Exhibit B1.
On the basis of the complaint and evidence on record and version of the opposite parties, we would like to consider the following points,
1). Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite
Parties.
2). If so what are the reliefs and costs.
For the sake of convenience, we would like to consider Point No.1 and 2 together.
Point No.1 and 2
On going through the complaint, and evidence adduced it is clear that the complainant had availed a vehicle loan from the opposite parities for his EON Car with Registration number KL-05-AQ.3312 in 2017. Exhibit A1 is the receipt voucher for an amount of Rs.7,000/- dated 19-11-2018 for the payment towards the loan account No:170105. Exhibits A2 is the cash receipt voucher for the payment of Rs.6,300/- dated 19-02-2020 being the installment number 30-31. There is no evidence before us to show that the complainant was regularly paying the EMI’s and the opposite party had demanded illegal penal interest from the complainant. The complainant failed to adduce any oral or documentary evidence to prove that the opposite parties had abused or threatened the complainant for the non payment of EMI’s. The complainant failed to adduce evidence to show that the opposite parties declined to accept the payment of pending EMI’s.
On the basis of the above discussed findings, we are of the opinion that the complainant failed to establish deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties with cogent evidence. The point No.1 is found in favor of the opposite parties.. The complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 22th day of August, 2022
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
By Order
Assistant Registrar
