Date of filing : 8-6-2006 Date of Order : 13-6-08. IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD CC.No.71/2006 Dated this, the 13th day of June 2008 PRESENT SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER SMT.SHYMALADEVI : MEMBER H. Prashanth Kumar, S/o.Sheshachalam, H.No.63/III, Shiriya.Po, } Complainant Kumbala, Kasaragod. 1. Pawan Investments, 52/1, Erulappan Street, Sowacarpet, } Opposite parties Chennai 600 079. 2. M.N.Maniyani, M.N.M.Financial Services, Nullipady, Kasaragod. 3. Registering Authority, Regional Transport Office, Kasaragod 671 323. O R D E R SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT. Shorn of all other averments and allegations the complaint is as follows:- Complainant availed Rs.1,20,000/- a vehicle loan from Opposite party No.1 through his agent Opposite party No.2 with a stipulation to repay Rs.1,48,000/- in 24 monthly instalments. But the complainant could pay Rs.78,000/- only and he committed default in repayment of balance instalments. Hence Opposite parties through agents seized the jeep bearing Reg.No.KL 06/A5002. Thereafter the complainant approached Opposite party to clear dues and take back the vehicle but opposite party informed that the vehicle is already sold. Hence complainant requested for no dues letter and the cheque leaves given as security. But Opposite party No.1 did not return it Hence the complaint. 2. Opposite parties 1&2 filed version and contends that the cheques given as security were belongs to Smt.Sumangala.M.S. and she was the guarantor. Since the complainant had only paid Rs.78,000/- towards the loan and defaulted the payment of the balance the vehicle was repossessed. As per agreement the complainant should have surrendered the RC after the repossession of the vehicle. But he did not surrender RC, hence Opposite party No.1 is not in a position to resale the vehicle. A sum of Rs.1,59,670/- is due to them as per agreement. The vehicle is not sold and it is still with opposite party No.1. Since they not obtained any cheques as alleged the question of return of cheques does not arise. There is no deficiency on the part of Opposite parties 1 & 2 and hence prays for a dismissal of complaint. 3. The complainant obtained an interim order on 8-6-06 as per which opposite parties and their agents were strained from presenting the cheques bearing Nos 555408 and 555410 of Karnataka Bank Mangalpadi branch till the disposal of case. Opposite party No.3 was restrained from issuing fresh RC in respect of vehicle bearing No.KL 06/A 5002 until further orders. 4. Even though the Opposite parties 1 & 2 were directed to produce the loan agreement papers, seizure and sale proceedings papers in respect of the Jeep KL 06/A5002 and cheques deposited as security as per the order in IA 94/06 they were not produced. Thereafter there was no sitting in the Forum for long due to the vacancy in the post of President and Members and after re-constituting of the Forum fresh notices were ordered to all parties on 17-3-08. Eventhough complainant and 3rd Opposite party were turned up Opposite parties 1 & 2 remained absent. Complainant filed affidavit in support of his claim and Exts A1 to A6 were marked. Opposite party No.3 submitted Ext.B1, true extract of the RC particulars of vehicle KL-6/A 5002. 5. The undisputes facts in this case are (a) the repayment of Rs.78,000/-towards the loan transaction(b) the re-possession of the vehicle by Opposite parties 1 & 2. 6. The complainant availed the loan under the agreement has now lost the vehicle KL-06/A5002 and the amount he paid towards the loan i.e. Rs.78,000/-. According to opposite party the vehicle would fetch below 1,00,000/- if sold and the due from complainant as on date was Rs.1,59,670/-. According to complainant the vehicle would fetch Rs.1,50,000/- on sale. The contentions of both sides are unacceptable owing to lack of evidence. But the fact remains that the complainant had parted with his vehicle and the money he repaid by way of instalments and the documents handed over to Opposite party No.2 at the time of execution of agreement. Certainly the complainant is entitled to get back the amount he paid towards the loan after adjusting the dues and the documents executed and entrusted at the time of availing loan. The Honble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has made certain observations in the case of Citi Corp Maruti Finance Ltd v. S.Vijayalaxmi III (2007) CPJ 161(NC). The relevant, pithy portion is quoted here. When a vehicle is purchased by a person(consumer by borrowing money from the money lender/financier/broker the consumer is the owner of the vehicle and not the money lender/financier/broker unless the ownership is transferred. In a democratic country having well established independent judiciary and having various laws it is impermissible for the money lender/financier/banker to take possession of the vehicle for which loan is advanced by use of force. Legal or judicial process may be slow but it is no excuse for employing musclemen to repossess the vehicle for which loan is given. Such type of Instant justice cannot be permitted in a civilized society where there is effective rule of law. Otherwise it would result in anarchy, that too when the borrower retorts and uses the force. 8. The National Commission further held: Where the vehicle is forcefully seized and sold byl the money lender/financier/banker it would be just and proper to award reasonable compensation to the complainant Reasonable compensation would depend upon facts of each case. 9. These directions are applicable to this case to a great extent.: 10. Here the complainant lost his vehicle KL-06/A 5002 and Rs.78,000/- he refunded by way of instlments. According to complainant his vehicle would fetch Rs.1,50,000/- if sold. Whether the complainant had incurred any amount by way of margin money for the purchase of the vehicle is not mentioned any where. 11. The loan advanced by Opposite party No.1 is Rs.1,20,000/. The amount opposite party No.1 received back by way of instalments is Rs.78,000/-. Moreover if the vehicle is sold, according to Opposite parties it would worth Rs.1,00,000/-.So opposite party No.1 had Rs.78,000/- in cash and the vehicle worth Rs.10,000/- (as valued by opposite party No.1 himself).Thus the total sum is Rs.1,78,000/-. Opposite party No.1 is not entitled to get the entire amount as per the stipulation contained in the agreement i.e Rs.1,48,000/-,since the vehicle is repossessed much earlier than the date of payment of final instalment. In our view he is entitled to get only the principal i.e. Rs.1,20,000/-. So the balance would be Rs.58,000/- which he is liable to repay to the complainant. Therefore we allow the complaint and Opposite parties 1 & 2 are directed to refund Rs.58,000/- to the complainant. They shall also return the agreement and other documents including cheques if any obtained either from the complainant or from his guarantor. On receipt of payment of Rs.58,000/- complainant shall return the original R.C. of the Jeep being KL-06/A 5002 to Opposite party No.1. Opposite parties 1 & 2 also directed to pay Rs.2000/- as the cost of these proceedings. Time for compliance of this order is 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Failing which upon application by the complainant proceedings U/s.25 & 27 of Consumer Protection Act will be initiated. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT A1. to A4 Receipts issued by Opposite parties to complainant. A5. 28-8-04 letter of OP No.1 A6. Form No.37 issued by OP to complainant. B1. True Extract copy of R.C. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Pj/ Forwarded by Order SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
