Kerala

StateCommission

A/13/3

M/S CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMNENTS AND FINANCE - Complainant(s)

Versus

P.M.ABDUL RASHEED - Opp.Party(s)

P.BALAKISHNAN

27 Oct 2016

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION  VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO. 03/13

JUDGMENT DATED:27.10.2016

 

PRESENT : 

JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATHALI                         :  PRESIDENT

SHRI.V.V. JOSE                                                          : MEMBER

1. M/s Cholamandalam Investment &

Finance Co. Ltd.,

1^st floor, Bethedsa Towers,,

Opp. St. Martins Church,                                                 

Palarivattom, Kochi-662 025.

: APPELLANTS

2. M/s Cholamandalam Investment &

Finance Co. Ltd.,

Date House, 1^st floor,

2 NSC Road, Chennai-600 001.

 

(By Adv: Sri. P. Balakrishnan)

 

            Vs.

 

Mr. P.M. Abdul Rasheed,

Puthusserikudiyil House,                                                            : RESPONDENT

Puthuppady P.O, Muvattupuzha.

 

(By Adv: Sri. Tom Joseph)

 

JUDGMENT

HON.JUSTICE.P.Q.BARKATHALI : PRESIDENT

 

This is an appeal filed by the opposite parties in CC.445/11 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakukulam challenging the order of the Forum dated, October 31, 2012 directing the opposite parties to proceed with the sale of the vehicle seized from the complainant and holding that complainant is not liable to pay any further amount towards the disputed loan amount.

2.      The case of the complainant as testified by him as PW1 before the Forum and as detailed in the complaint in brief is this:-

Complainant is a driver by profession.  He availed a loan of Rs.2,41,000/- from the opposite parties for his Tata ACE vehicle bearing registration No.KL-17E-7276 on September 22, 2007.  The complainant had to repay Rs.3,49,498/- in 48 monthly instalments commencing from November 01, 2007 to October 01, 2011 at the rate of Rs.7281/- per month.  The vehicle met with an accident on January 2009 and therefore complainant defaulted the instalment.  He paid instalments till May 30, 2010 amounting to Rs.1,75,527/-.  The opposite parties seized the vehicle on October 06, 2010.  E ven at that time the market value of the vehicle was Rs.2,25,000/-.  But on August 01, 2011 opposite parties sent a notice to the complainant demanding Rs.3,38,854/-.  Actually after adjusting the price of the vehicle there will be an excess amount of Rs.55,550/- which opposite parties have to pay to the complainant.  Therefore complainant filed the complaint claiming that amount and compensation.

3.      The opposite parties are M/s Cholamandalam Investments represented by its Manager in its Branch Office at Kochi and its Head office at Chennai.  They in their version contended thus before the Forum.  Complainant is not a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act as the transaction is a commercial one.  Article.17 of the loan agreement provides for referring the dispute to arbitration. As the complainant defaulted repayment of the loan the vehicle was seized on October 06, 2010 by the order of High Court of Madras.  Even at that time the vehicle will not fetch not more than Rs.1,00,000/-.  Complainant has remitted Rs.1,75,314/- only.   Rs.3,25,188/- is due to the opposite parties from the complainant.  Therefore complaint has to be dismissed.

4.      Complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A4 were marked on his side and on the side of the opposite parties DW1 was examined and Exts.B1 to B4 were produced before the Forum.  On an appreciation of evidence Forum found that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and found that complainant need not pay any further amount towards loan amount and directed the opposite parties to sell the vehicle and appropriate the amount towards loan amount.  Opposite parties have now come up in appeal challenging the said order of the Forum.

5.      Heard both the counsels.

6.      The following points arise for consideration:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Whether the impugned order of the Forum can be sustained?

 

7.      The counsel for the appellants argued that Rs.3,25,158/- is due from the complainant and that therefore Forum is not justified in ordering that complainant need not pay any further amount towards the loan amount.  We are unable to agree.  As per the direction of this Court, opposite parties/appellants sold the vehicle and filed a statement to the effect that it was sold for Rs.15,000/- only.  Admittedly vehicle was seized on October 06, 2010.  If the vehicle was sold within 15 days of the seizure as provided in Ext.B2 loan agreement it would have fetched much more amount.  Ext.A4 the insurance proposal and cover note shows that the declared value of the vehicle is Rs.2,25,000/-.  If the opposite parties have sold the vehicle in 2010 itself, the entire loan amount would have been now wiped out which they did not do.  Thus there is clear deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties for which complainant is entitled to compensation.  The finding of the Forum on this point is confirmed.

8.      Instead of awarding compensation the Forum found that complainant is not liable to pay any further amount towards the loan in question which appears reasonable.  We find no reason to interfere with the said finding of the Forum.

In the result we find no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with a cost of Rs.5000/-.

 

 

JUSTICE P.Q. BARKATHALI:  PRESIDENT

 

 

V.V. JOSE : MEMBER

 

VL.