IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA
Friday the 14th day of August, 2020
Filed on 27.01.2017
Present
1. Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar, Bsc.LLB(President)
2. Smt. Sholy.P.R BA. LLB(Member)
In
CC/No.92/2017
Between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri. Sunil Kumar 1. Sakthi Finance Ltd.
S/o Vasudevan 62 Doctor Nanjappa Road,
Munduchirayil Veettil Coimbatore-641018
Chengannur.P.O
Alappuzha 2. Sakthi Finance Ltd
(Adv.Joseph George) No. AMC W20/115 2nd Floor, Ambalappuzha
Alappuzha-689561
3. Sakthi Finance Ltd,
Post Box No. 686001
Sasthri Road, Kottayam
(Adv.Babu Joseph for OP 1to3)
O R D E R
SRI. S. SANTHOSH KUMAR (PRESIDENT)
Complaint filed u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986
Material averments briefly discussed are as follows:-
Opposite party 1 to 3 are arranging finance to vehicles under hire purchase scheme. Complainant on 11/1/2014 availed loan of Rs. 2,75,000/- under hire purchase scheme as
account No. 487393 for his innova car bearing Reg.No.KL.8-AE-808. The amount was to be repaid as EMI of Rs. 10,350/- starting from 17/4/2014.
The last instalment was due on 17/3/2017 and the complainant paid a total amount of Rs. 1,73,545/- as instalments. On 7/1/2017 complainant received a legal notice demanding to pay an amount of Rs.1,59,500/- before 14/1/2017. When he contacted the 3rd opposite party it was informed that account cannot be closed for the said amount and demanded penal interest. Complainant is ready to pay the amount as one time settlement. There is deficiency in service on the side of the opposite party and hence they may be directed to receive the entire amount as single instalment and not to realize interest and penal interest.
2. Counsel for the opposite parties filed a joint version mainly contenting as follows:-
The complaint is not maintainable. As per the agreement executed with the opposite parties, complainant had to pay a total amount of Rs. 3,71,938/- in equated monthly instalments amounting Rs. 10,350/- per month from April 2014 to March 2017 without any default. The complainant was a chronic defaulter. Now an amount of Rs.2,86,246/- is due which includes monthly instalments and interest.
The legal notice was issued demanding monthly instalments due till that day. Apart from that complainant has to pay delay charges, cheque bounce charges and other financial charges. Interest and other charges were not included in the notice. The complaint is devoid of any merits and it may be dismissed.
3. On the above pleadings following points arose for consideration:-
1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the
opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get a direction
against the opposite parties to settle the hire purchase
as one time settlement after receiving the amount
demanded in the notice?
3. Reliefs and cost?
4. Evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Ext. A1 to A3 from the side of the complainant. Opposite parties have not adduced any evidence either oral or documentary.
PW1 was examined on 9/11/2017 and from 21/12/2017 onwards the case is pending for hearing. From the proceedings paper it is seen that there was attempt for settlement but was not settled. Thereafter from 29/11/2019 onwards the case was posted for hearing with no further time. Complainant did not turn up. Counsel for the opposite parties filed an argument note.
5. Point No. 1 and 2:-
The case of PW1 the complainant is that he had availed a hire purchase loan of Rs. 2,75,000/- from the opposite parties. Under the terms and conditions he had to repay the same as monthly EMI’s of Rs. 10,350/- starting from 17/4/2014. He had paid a total amount of Rs. 1,73,545/- as instalments. While so he received Ext.A1 notice on 7/1/2017 demanding an amount of Rs. 1,59,500/-. Ext.A2 and Ext.A3 is the repayment schedule. Now his case is that opposite parties may be directed to receive the amount demanded in Ext.A1 notice and settle the account. Opposite parties filed a joint version contenting that complainant is a chronic defaulter and the amount demanded in Ext.A1 notice is only the monthly instalments and he is liable to pay interest and penal interest for the delayed payment. During cross examination PW1 admitted that the amount was to be repaid as 36 monthly instalments starting from 14/4/2014 to 17/3/2017. He admitted that in Ext.A1 notice the demand is to pay arrears up to 7/1/2017. As per Ext.A3 it is seen that complainant is a chronic defaulter and there was delay in repayment. He admitted that he had repaid an amount of Rs.1,73,365/-. He also admitted that as per the agreement opposite parties had a right to realize penal interest for delayed payment. According to opposite parties now an amount of Rs.1,99,000/- in the principal account and Rs.8,726/- as penal interest are due. However it was denied byPW1.
So from the evidence on record it can be seen that though PW1 had availed a loan of Rs. 2,75,000/- so far he has repaid only Rs. 1,73,365/-. As per the terms of the hire purchase agreement the last instalment was on 17/3/2017. Ext.A1 notice dated 7/1/2017 was issued demanding Rs. 1,59,500/-. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties the demand was for monthly arrears. It appears that PW1 was under the impression that it was for a onetime settlement and so he has approached this commission seeking a relief. Evidence on record shows that complainant is liable to pay the balance amount and interest including penal interest for the delayed payment. According to learned counsel appearing for opposite parties an amount of Rs. 1,99,000/- is due in the principal amount. If that is so the request of the complainant for giving a direction to the opposite parties to settle the dispute under one time settlement cannot be allowed. First of all they have to settle the accounts and then only the amount can be arrived. Relevant data are not available to arrive as to what is the balance amount due to the opposite parties. However during cross examination PW1 admitted that he was a chronic defaulter and Ext.A3 shows that repayment was delayed. If that is so as per the agreement he is liable to pay penal interest. In said circumstances we are of the view that complainant is not entitled for any relief and so these points are found against the complainant.
6. Point No.3
In the result complaint is dismissed with cost of Rs.2000/-.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him correct by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 14th day of August, 2020.
Sd/-Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar(President)
Sd/-Smt. C.K.Lekhamma(Member)
Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Sunil Kumar(Witness)
Ext.A1 - Notice dtd. 07.01.2017
Ext.A2 - Repayment Schedule
Ext.A3 - Repayment Schedule
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Senior Superintendent
Typed by:- Br/-
Compared by:-
