DATE OF FILING : 17.06.2010

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 29th day of October, 2010

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.130/2010

Between

Complainant : Jiji Scaria,

Puthiyaparambil House,

Ezhukumvayal Kara,

Kalkoonthal Village,

Idukki District.

(By Adv: Saji Augustine)

And

Opposite Parties : 1. Shriram Investments Limited,

Reg.Office 123,

Angappa Naicken Street,

Chennai,

Tamilnadu.

2. Shriram Investments Limited,

Branch Office,

Kottayam.

(By Advs: Sijimon.K.Augustine & Jomon.K.Chacko)

3. Kerala Transport Development Corporation, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv: P.A.Suhas)

4. Shriram Investments Limited,

Branch Office,

Kattappana P.O,

Idukki District.

O R D E R

SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)
 

This is a complaint alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties. The grievance of the complainant in brief are as follows :
 

2. The complainant purchased a bus bearing Reg.No.KL-17B/0420 from Sri.N.S.Saji, he had entered into a hire purchase agreement with the 3^rd opposite party. The amount of Rs.8,50,000/- was repayable with interest in 58 monthly instalments commencing from the period from 29.08.2004 to 29.05.2009. At the time of purchasing the vehicle 5 instalments were due. So the loan amount was reduced as Rs.8,25,000/- and the opposite party had calculated interest and overdue interest against the terms of the agreement. So the complainant filed O.S.85/07 before the Hon'ble Sub Court, Kattappana. The suit was withdrawn by the complainant. The complainant paid Rs.2,00,000/- for repairing the vehicle. The opposite party had demanded huge amount over the admitted amount of instalments. The opposite party have no right to demand excess than the admitted amount. On 5.06.2010, the opposite party had tried to take over the vehicle into his possession by force. Due to the threatening of the opposite party, the complainant is sustaining huge loss. The complainant enquired about the detailed statement of account. The opposite party never provided statement of accounts as per the request of the complainant. Alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties, the complaint has been filed for a direction to the opposite parties to produce the statement of accounts along with compensation for the mental agony, hardships etc. and also for getting a direction against the opposite parties from forcibly taking the possession of the bus from the custody of the complainant.

3. In the written version filed by the 2^nd opposite party, it is contended that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction and the petition ought to have filed before the Kottayam CDRF since the cause of action arose in Kottayam District. The complainant is not a consumer as he has not hired the services from the opposite party nor he has purchased any vehicle from the opposite party. The complainant was bound to clear the instalments without fail. If any default was committed by the complainant he is liable to pay additional finance charges as per the hire purchase agreement. The complainant has failed to remit the instalments in time. The complainant never requested for a statement of account. The opposite party is ready to give the true and correct statement of account regarding the vehicle. The opposite party never tried to take forceful possession of the vehicle. The complainant has not sustained any loss or damage. The complainant is not entitled for any relief.
 

4. In the written version filed by the 3^rd opposite party, it is contended that the complainant is not a consumer as he has not hired the services from the opposite party nor he has purchased any vehicle from the opposite party. On 29.06.2004, the 3^rd opposite party has given financial assistance to Mr.N.S.Saji through the Ist and 2^nd opposite parties. The loan amount was Rs.8,50,000/- . The amount was agreed to be remitted in 60 instalments. If any default has committed by him, he is liable to pay additional finance charges as per the hire purchase agreement. On 1.01.2005 the loan and vehicle were transferred to Mr.Jiji Scaria without cancelling the hypothecation endorsement in the RC Book. He had defaulted the instalments. In the hire purchase transaction, the complainant was failed to remit the instalments so he is liable to pay additional finance charges. The 3^rd opposite party is not liable to pay any relief to the complainant. No inconvenience or deficiency in service or harm has been caused to the complainant.
 

5. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?

6. No evidence adduced by both parties. Heard from both sides.
 

7. POINT NO.1 :- One of the contention raised by the opposite party is to challenge the maintainability. The transaction in question is a hire purchase agreement and such agreements are excluded from the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. There is no evidence on record to show that this was a hire purchase agreement. According to the complainant, this was a loan transaction repayable in instalments on the security of the vehicles. The documents itself are styled as loan agreement. So the contention regarding hire purchase etc. has no relevance at all. Therefore we find that the present petition is perfectly maintainable.
 

8. POINT NO.2 :- The main dispute raised in this complaint relates to the correctness of the statement of accounts between the parties. Admittedly, the complainant purchased a bus bearing Reg.No.KL-17B/0420 from Sri.N.S.Saji, he had entered into a hire purchase agreement with the 3^rd opposite party and there was some dues in remitting the instalments. The case of the opposite party is that for delated payments they are entitled to pay additional finance charges as per the agreement. The complainant has the right to get the statement of loan account as per the request of the complainant. The complainant could not ply the vehicle through the road. So he sustained heavy loss. The opposite party has the right to get the due instalments from the complainant, but the opposite party has no right to take the vehicle forcefully from the complainant. Therefore the complainant is not entitled for any compensation or even the cost of this complaint from the opposite parties. The opposite parties are restrained from forcefully taking the possession of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-17B/0420 from the custody of the complainant with due process of law. If any loan amount of the vehicle is due from the complainant, the opposite parties can proceed legally against the complainant. The opposite parties are directed to issue correct statement of account with normal interest and not to charge penal interest, over dues etc.

In the result, the petition allowed. The opposite parties are restrained from forcefully taking possession of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-17B/0420 from the custody of the complainant without due process of law. If any loan amount of the vehicle is due from the complainant, the opposite parties can proceed legally against the complainant. The opposite parties are also directed to furnish a statement of loan account of the vehicle bearing Reg.No. KL-17B/0420 as per the request of the complainant and to charge normal interest as 12% per annum for the defaulted instalments for defaulted period, not to charge penal interest, over dues etc. for the defaulted instalments. The complainant is not entitled for any other relief claimed in the complaint.
 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of October, 2010

Sd/-

SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)

Sd/-

I agree SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

I agree SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)

APPENDIX

Nil.