KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NOS.290/08 & 374/08
COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 31.3.2011
PRESENT
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT
SHRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR -- MEMBER
APPEAL NO.290/08
1. The Regional Manager
Cholamandalam Investments &
Finance Co.Ltd. IV Floor,
PanAfrican Plaza
M.G.Road, Thiruvananthapuram. -- APPELLANTS
2. The Manager,
Cholamandalam Investments &
Finance Co.Ltd., Kurumpeli Avenue,
Polayamthode, Kollam Dist.
(By Adv.P.Balakrishnan)
Vs.
Mr.Sudheeran
Chirakonathu Charuvila Veedu,
Irumpanangadu, -- RESPONDENT
Ezhukone, Kollam Dist.
APPEAL NO.374/08
Mr.Sudheeran
Chirakonathu Charuvila Veedu,
Irumpanangadu, -- APPELLANTS
Ezhukone, Kollam Dist.
(By Adv.S.Reghukumar)
1. The Regional Manager
Cholamandalam Investments &
Finance Co.Ltd. IV Floor,
PanAfrican Plaza
M.G.Road, Thiruvananthapuram. -- RESPONDENT
2. The Manager,
Cholamandalam Investments &
Finance Co.Ltd., Kurumpeli Avenue,
Polayamthode, Kollam Dist.
( R1 by Adv.P.Balakrishnan)
COMMON JUDGMENT
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT
The appellants in appeal 290/08 are the opposite parties and the appellant in appeal 374/08 is the complainant in CC No. 20/06 in the file of CDRF, Kollam. The opposite parties are under orders to pay the compensation of a sum of Rs. 24885/- with interest at 12% per annum from 20.11.2005 and to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation.
2. The complainant/appellant in the appeal 374/08 has sought for enhanced compensation. The case of the complainant is that he had availed a loan of Rs. 1,06,000/- from the opposite parties for purchasing a pickup van. The amount of loan had to be repayed in 36 installments at the rate of Rs. 3975/- and he had payed Rs. 20,475/-as advance of the value of the vehicle to the dealer. The complainant remitted the instalment by DD drawn in favour of the opposite parties at Chennai. Although three instalments were remitted by DD no receipt was issued. Hence the complainant declined to remit the remaining installments. On 20.11.2002 the opposite parties seized the vechicle. The complainant contacted the office of opposite parties. They demanded to remit a sum of Rs. 13,000/- towards the installments due. The above amount was remitted and receipt issued on 11.01.2006. The opposite parties refused to release the vehicle without mentioning any a valid reason. The complainant has sought for return of amount paid to the opposite party and to the dealers. He paid Rs.24885/- to opposite parties and Rs.20475/- to the dealer. He has also sought for a compensation of Rs.5000/- for hardships faced by him.
3. The opposite parties had contended that they financed for purchasing of the pickup van and the amount agreed to be repaid was Rs. 134325/- ie, the first instalment at the rate of Rs. 1500/- and next 35 instalments at the rate of Rs. 3795/-; 1.4.05 is the date of payment of the first instalment. The complainant also issued 45 cheque of various dates. The first instalment of Rs.1500/- was deducted from the loan amount of Rs. 10,6000/-. The cheques of second instalment and third instalment bounced. Subsequently the complainant at the threat of initiation of action remitted Rs. 3795/- in June 2005 and Rs. 4295/- on August 2005 by DD’s. As on November 2005 the amount due was Rs.22271/-. The vehicle was repossessed after compliance of legal formalities on 20.11.2005. On 11/1/2006 the complainant approached the opposite parties and was directed to remit the arrears of Rs.30225/- as on December 2005 and Rs.3795/- for the 10th instalment. The complainant remitted an amount of Rs.13,000/- on 11/01/2006, immediately thereafter on 19/01/2006 the complainant has approached the Forum and obtained an interim order. It is denied that complainant had remitted the three instalment amounts by DDs.
4. Evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, DW1 and Exts.P1 to P5 and D1 to D5.
5. The counsel for the opposite party/appellant has stated that in view of the order of the Forum restraining the sale of the vehicle, the vehicle repossessed is still kept in the garage of the opposite party. It is pointed out that the opposite parties are unable to recover the amounts due and also to sell the vehicle. It is seen from the evidence that the cheques produced by the complainant were dishonoured. It is evident that the complainant has not remitted the amounts in time. The complainant has not paid the amount due as on the date of the remittance of Rs.13000/-. Just the amount due as per the rate of instalments would work out to Rs.34,155/-. There will be additional interest for delayed payments also. Even as per the complainant he has altogether remitted only Rs.24,885/-. It is the case of the complainant that the opposite party have agreed to release the vehicle on payment of Rs.13,000/-. The same has been denied by the opposite parties. We find that the complainant has failed to remit the amount in time. The complainant was bound to see that the cheques are not dishonored. The above deficiency on the part of the complainant is equally prominent.
6. As observed by the Forum in very strong terms, the act of the opposite parties in seizing the vehicle is illegal. The opposite parties also could have released the vehicle on deposit of Rs.13,000/- although about 10,000/- more were due. Really both sides have sustained losses. The complainant could use the vehicle only for about 9 months. He has paid Rs.20,475/- to the dealer and Rs.24,885/- to the opposite parties. The opposite parties have shelled out Rs. 106000/- and realized only Rs.24,885/-. The complainant is not ready to take back the vehicle evidently, as years have elapsed and the vehicle was lying stationary. The appellants can realize the value of the vehicle by sale but the same may not be sufficient to realize the amount advanced. They were so far restrained from selling the vehicle vide the order of the Forum. In the circumstances, we find that the order of the forum is liable to be modified. The opposite parties/appellants are directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant with interest at 6 % per annum from the date of the order of the Forum ie; 22.9.08. The direction to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation is set aside. The amount is to be paid within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant will be entitled for interest at 12% per annum from the date of this order ie; 31.3.11.
In the result, the appeal 290/08 is allowed in part and Appeal no.374/08 is dismissed.
JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT
S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR -- MEMBER
