KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 906/2015

JUDGMENT DATED: 16.10.2018

(Against the order in C.C. 78/2010 of CDRF, Thrissur)

PRESENT : 

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN  : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A                                                 : MEMBER

APPELLANT:

          Tata Motors Finance Ltd., Smart Centre, 4^th Floor, Cochin-682 021.

 (By Adv. N.U. Nampoothiri)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENT:

N.I. Joseph, 9/126, Nadakkavukaran House, P.O, Thrissur.

JUDGMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN  : PRESIDENT

1^st opposite party in C.C. No. 78/2010 on the file of CDRF Thrissur,  for short, the district forum, has filed this appeal challenging the Order of the forum directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation and cost to the complainant.

2. Complainant/respondent purchased a motor vehicle with finance provided by opposite parties on hypothecation of that vehicle.  Despite payment of the loan of Rs. 2 lakhs financed by due payment of installments as agreed to, no objection certificate to vacate hypothecation entered in the R.C book of the vehicle was issued by the opposite parties, who demanded excess sum, and, thereby committing deficiency in service, was the case of the complainant to claim compensation from them.  Opposite parties filing a joint version resisted the claim contending that complainant had not cleared the amount due on the loan and further there was default on his part in paying the monthly installments in time.  A sum of Rs. 33932.31 was still due from the complainant was the case of the opposite parties to challenge the case of the complainant denying deficiency in service imputed. 

3. The evidence consisted of testimony of complainant as PW1 and Ext. P1 to P12 series on his side and Exts. R1 to R8 on the side of opposite parties.  Appreciating the materials produced the lower forum has come to the conclusion that the charges collected by opposite party for delayed payment to claim the sum stated in their version was without any merit and that the complainant had paid all instalments due on the loan in time.  Allowing the complaint opposite parties were directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation.  Aggrieved by that Order 1^st opposite party has preferred this appeal.

4.  We heard the counsel on both sides.  We find from perusal of records and the submissions made by the counsel on both sides that as and when the finance was provided by the opposite parties on hypothecation of the vehicle they have collected post dated cheques for realizing monthly instalments on the due date of every month from the bank account of complainant.  Ext. P9 statement issued by bank for the period from 07.07.2006 to 30.09.2009 clearly demonstrate that all the post dated cheques issued and handed over by him in advance to the opposite parties had been cleared on presentation.  The due date for payment of monthly instalment was on 11^th of every month.  However, it is seen, the opposite parties had presented the cheques later on many many occasions, after 15^th of the month, and in their statement of account they have charged and included additional sum for such delay.   Delay was on account of late presentation of cheques collected from the complainant in advance.  We notice from Ext. P9 statement that the complainant throughout the period had maintained sufficient amount in his account to honour the amount due on the instalments to be paid to the financier and there was no default on his part whatsoever.  When that be so, claim of the opposite parties for its own fault for delayed payment certainly amounted to deficiency in service and the lower forum was fully justified in concluding so.  However, we find that compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- awarded to the complainant for such deficiency in service is excessive and unreasonable, and, we modify the sum limiting it to Rs. 25,000/-. Opposite parties are liable to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- to the complainant as compensation and also to issue a no objection certificate closing the loan account within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

5.  Sum deposited by the appellant for entertaining his appeal shall be released to the complainant on his application, to satisfy the compensation awarded as modified by this Commission.  Opposite party has to comply with the order to issue no objection certificate within the time limit fixed from the date of receipt of copy of judgment as indicated.

Appeal is partly allowed as indicated above.

JUSTICE S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN : PRESIDENT

jb                                                                                                                                             BEENA KUMARY. A         : MEMBER