KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
APPEAL NO. 803/12
JUDGMENT DATED: 29.04.2013
(Against the order in CC. 92/11 on the file of CDRF,MALAPPURAM dt:21.07.2012)
PRESENT:
JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q.BARKATH ALI : PRESIDENT
The Branch Manager,
Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd.,
1st floor, Rainbow Commercial Complex, : APPELLANT
Naduvilangadi, Tirur.
(By Adv: M/s Pramod Chandran & C.S.Rajmohan)
Vs.
Saidalavi.K,
Kudupuzhakkal House, : RESPONDENT
Cherur.P.O, Malappuram.
JUDGMENT
JUSTICE SHRI.P.Q. BARKATH ALI : PRESIDENT
This is an appeal filed by the opposite party in CC.92/11 on the file of CDRF, Malappuram challenging the order of the Forum dated, July 21,2012.
2. The case of the respondent/complainant as detailed in the complaint and in his proof affidavit filed before the Forum in brief is this. The complainant availed a loan of Rs.2,40,000/- from the appellant/opposite party and purchased a Tipper Lorry bearing registration No.KL-7 K 4282. The agreement was to repay the amount in 36 monthly instalments. The complainant had to pay Rs.3,30,000/- including the interest of Rs.90,000/-. Ext.B1 is the said hypothecation agreement dated, February 15, 2008. The agreement ended on January 15, 2011. The complainant had paid Rs.2,25,000/-Thereafter appellant/opposite party repossessed the vehicle using gundas on July 24, 2010. Complainant paid Rs.82,000/- as demanded by the appellant/opposite party for release of the vehicle. But the appellant demanded a further sum of Rs.2,00,000/- which is illegal. Therefore the complainant filed this complaint directing the opposite party to release the vehicle on receipt of the balance amount with lawful interest. He has also claimed a compensation of Rs.50,000/- and a cost of Rs.5000/-.
3. The appellant/opposite party, M/s Sreeram Transport Finance Company, Tirur, represented by its Branch Manager, in his version before the Forum contended thus:-
The transaction is admitted out of Rs.3,30,000/- complainant paid only Rs.2,28,650/-. The last due date was on January 15, 2011. If the loan is not closed within the said period the appellant is entitled to claim overdue compensation. The appellant is entitled to Rs.69.858/- as over due compensation. That being so, the complainant has to pay total amount of Rs.1,97,080/-. The opposite party prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. Complainant filed proof affidavit and Exts.A1 and A2 were marked on this side before the Forum. The appellant/opposite party has also filed proof affidavit and Exts.B1 and B2 were marked on his behalf.
5. On an appreciation of evidence the Forum found that the appellant/opposite party had repossessed the vehicle from the complainant, that complainant is bound to pay Rs.1,01,350/- towards the loan with 15% interest from January 15, 2011. The complainant was directed to pay to the appellant/opposite party that amount and on such payment the appellant was directed to release the vehicle to the complainant. Cost of Rs.2000/- was also awarded. The opposite party has come up in appeal challenging the said order of the Forum.
6. Heard the counsel for the appellant and respondent.
The following points arise for consideration:-
1. What is the correct amount due to the appellant/opposite party from the complainant?
2. Whether the appellant/opposite party has repossessed the vehicle from the complainant?
3. Whether the impugned order of the Forum can be sustained?
7. The transaction is admitted. The main question for consideration is, what is the correct amount due from the complainant to the appellant/opposite party. Ext.B2, the details of the agreement between the complainant and opposite party and the details of the payment shows that complainant had paid Rs.2,28,650/- five months before January 15, 2011. Ext.B1, the loan agreement shows that additional interest at the rate of is 3% per annum for the belated payment. In Ext.A2 lawyer notice, opposite party has demanded Rs.1,97,080/- ie an over due compensation of 36% per annum. I am in complete agreement with the Forum that it is unfair trade practice on the part of the appellant to claim such a huge amount as interest. The balance amount, the complainant has to pay was Rs.1,01,350/-, with interest at 15% per annum including additional interest of 3% from 15.1.2011. The finding of the Forum on this point is confirmed.
8. Though the opposite party has denied having repossessed the vehicle, Forum has chosen to believe the evidence of PW1 on this aspect. I find no reason to come to a different conclusion. Forum has directed the appellant/opposite party to release the vehicle with its documents to the complainant on payment of Rs.1,01,350/- with interest at the rate of 15% per annum from 15.1.2011 till payment and ordered cost of Rs.2000/-. I find no ground to interfere with the said finding of the Forum. Consequently the appeal has to be dismissed.
In the result appeal is dismissed with a cost of Rs.5000/-.
JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI: PRESIDENT
VL.
