KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL.01/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 24.6.2010 PRESENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT 1. The Branch Manager, : APPELLANTS M/s Shriram Investments ltd., Near Police Club, Kannur. 2. The Manager, M/s Shriram Investments ltd., Sreepuram Builidngs, Cherutty Road, Calicut. (By Adv.R.Jayakrishnan) Vs. N.P.Saheesh, : RESPONDENT Shreyas, Padannakkara, P.O.Pinarayi, Kannur. (By Adv.Narayan.R) JUDGMENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in OP.80/2004 in the file of CDRF, Kannur. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- with interest at 6% from September 2002 and also Rs.5000/- as compensation with Rs.1000/- as cost. 2. The case of the complainant is that he availed facility of vehicle loan of Rs.4,50,000/- from the opposite parties/appellants vide agreement dtd. 6.6.02 for the purchase of a stage carriage. No repayment was made. As the opposite parties did not return the RC of the vehicle he could not ply the vehicle. The vehicle was surrendered in September 2002. It was assured at the time of surrender that the complainant will be paid the balance amount after the sale of the vehicle which will be sold for a sum not less than Rs.6,25,000/-. When the complainant approached for refund of the balance amount the opposite parties issued a lawyer notice dtd. 31.10.03 directing the complainant to pay Rs.3,75,000/- allegedly due to the opposite party. The complainant issued a reply notice seeking refund of Rs.1,75,000/- as the complainant has purchased the bus for Rs.6,82,000/-. Hence the complaint filed for refund of the excess amount. 3. The opposite party/appellant has contended that the amount of Rs.4,50,000/- paid was to be repaid in 48 instalments which would work out to Rs.6,80,314/- including interest. It is denied that the RC was with the opposite party. It is pointed out that no instalments were paid and hence the opposite party repossessed the vehicle. It is pointed out that the value of the vehicle had considerably diminished due to rash and negligent use the vehicle. It could be sold for a low amount and after adjusting the dues the complainant is liable to pay Rs.3,75,000/- to the opposite party. 4.The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, DW1; Exts.A1 toA6, B1 and B2.. 5. We find that the opposite parties have not produced any evidence as to sale of the vehicle or as to the amount received as sale consideration or to date of which the vehicle was sold. It is pointed out by the counsel for the appellant that the vehicle is a 1998 model. Before this commission also the appellant have not produced any evidence as to the sale of the vehicle. There is nothing to show that the complainant was intimated as to the date of sale etc. The Forum has made a rough assessments of the sale consideration. We find that it would not be possible to arrive at a proper decision in the absence of the records with respect to the sale of the vehicle and also to consider the fairness of the proceedings of the sale. The complainant has also not produced any independent evidence except the survey report with respect to the amounts spent for the purchase of the vehicle. In the circumstances we find that the matter requires reconsideration. The order of the Forum is set aside on condition that the appellant/opposite party pay a sum of Rs.5000/- towards costs to the complainant or deposit the same before the Forum which can be withdrawn by the complainant. The Forum will permit the both sides to adduce further evidence and dispose of the matter afresh, at the earliest at any rate within four months the copy of receipt of this order. 6. The matter stands before the Forum on 19.8.2010. Office will forward the LCR to the Forum along with the copy of this order. JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT ps | 
