BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)

DATED: 22.08.2023

PRESENT

HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH: PRESIDENT

Mr.K.B SANGANNANAVAR  :       JUDICIAL MEMBER

Mrs. DIVYASHREE M :      LADY MEMBER

APPEAL NO. 735/2017

ORDER

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH, PRESIDENT

01.    The complainant has filed this Appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 challenging the impugned order dated: 25.02.2017 passed in C.C. No.70/2015 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bidar.

02.    The parties to this Appeal will be referred to as their rank assigned to them by the commission below.

03.    Heard the arguments of learned counsel for Appellant on admission.

04.    The District Commission after going through the matter had dismissed the consumer complaint on 25.02.2017 in C.C. No.70/2015.  Aggrieved by this order, complainant has filed this Appeal.

05.    Perused the impugned order dated: 25.02.2017 and the grounds urged in the Appeal.  

06.   The brief facts of the case of the complainant is that, on 21.01.2013 the complainant had availed vehicle loan of Rs.9,16,839/- from the opposite party towards purchase of Ashoka Leyland Tusker Super 2214 bearing registration No. AP-12-V-7186 and had entered in to loan-cum-hypothecation agreement.  The loan period was 05 years, the rate of interest was 11.58% per annum and  had promise to repay the loan amount in 60 monthly installment  of Rs.24,600/-.  As there was variation in paying the monthly installments,   however, complainant had paid a total sum of Rs.6,19,062/- between 05.03.2013 to 24.02.2015 through EMI and the remaining loan amount was Rs.3,00,000/-.  Due to his financial crises on 09.10.2013 complainant sold   the said vehicle to one Sri. Mohammed Javid and in this regard agreement of sale was also entered with him.  In order to execute sale deed Mohammed Javid arranged remaining loan amount from M/s. Sundaram Finance Limited and approached the opposite party seeking NOC, but opposite party told that, complainant has to pay Rs.8,00,000/- towards the amount due till 60^th installment.  Accordingly Mohammed Javid paid Rs.8,00,000/- to the opposite party on 10.03.2015 and in-turn the opposite party issued NOC to the complainant.  Based on the said NOC the name of Mohammed Javid and his financer came to be entered in the B Register by the RTO at Hyderabad (south zone) and the name of the opposite party in the complaint came to be deleted from the said B Register.  The complainant came to know subsequently   opposite party had fraudulently extracted more money from the complainant and made him to pay Rs.24,600/- as EMI towards the repayment of vehicle loan of Rs.8,16,839/- in 60 EMI.  As per calculation the monthly installment comes to Rs.20,201/- only, whereas opposite party had calculated Rs.24,600/- which is unfair trade practice and deficiency of service.  Hence complainant filed consumer complaint seeking refund of Rs.2,32,592/- paid towards the extra amount collected by the opposite party.  

07.    The grounds urged by the Appellant is that, the District Forum ought to have seen that, as per ‘B’ register of motor vehicles, the document produced by the opposite party, the complainant was the owner of the said vehicle from 24.01.2013 to 24.03.2015 and from 24.03.2015 Mohammed Javid came to be the owner.  The Forum committed error in coming to the conclusion that, the vehicle in question was sold on 20.05.2013 without seeing the absolute sale deed between the complainant and Mohammed Javid.  There was only an agreement of sale between them.  The agreement of sale does not confer title over the property.  The complainant had paid a total sum of Rs.6,19,062/- towards loan amount as EMIs from 05.03.2013 to 24.02.2015 and remaining loan amount was only Rs.3,00,000/-.  As per the loan cum hypothecation agreement dated: 21.01.2013, only 5% of charge can be levied on the outstanding loan amount and as per RBI guidelines on imposing charges on pre-closure of loan, charges up to 4% could be levied and not more. 

08.    The Learned Counsel for complainant has argued that, the opposite party had played unfair trade practice by extracting an extra amount of Rs.2,32,592/- towards the repayment of the loan amount which he had availed on 21.01.2013, but as per the agreed terms and conditions the opposite party has to charge only 5% on the outstanding loan amount and without seeing the absolute sale deed executed in between the complainant and Mohammed Javid the District Forum had wrongly concluded that, after selling out the vehicle, the complainant by his own lapses and malfeasances ceases to be a consumer and had dismissed the complaint.  The opposite party being a financer had enriched with the money extracted from the innocent complainant and hence sought for remand of the consumer complaint.

09.    In view of the above submission made by the counsel for the complainant, we are of the considered view that, though complainant had sold out the alleged vehicle to one Mohammed Javid vide agreement of sale dated: 09.10.2013 on making payment of the entire outstanding loan amount as per the agreed norms and as per the demand made by the opposite party, the complainant being borrower of the loan shall absolutely have right to seek explanation from the opposite party in respect of any extra amount collected from the opposite party – financer as alleged by the complainant.  Hence we proceed to allow the Appeal and as a result set aside the impugned order dated: 25.02.2017 passed by the District Commission and remanded back the complaint to the District Commission to consider the case afresh and dispose-off the same on merits as early as possible within three months.

10.    Office is directed to send back the lower court records to the concerned commission to proceed further in the matter.

11.    Provide copy of this order to the District Commission as well as to the parties to the appeal.

LADY MEMBER        JUDICIAL MEMBER         PRESIDENT

KNMP*