D.O.F: 04/03/2015

                                                                                               D.O.O: 29/11/2018

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

CC.No.50/15

Dated this, the 29^th day of November 2018

PRESENT:

SRI.ROY PAUL                         :PRESIDENT

SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M  : MEMBER

Nagesh.D, Aged 40 Years,

S/o Damodaranan, R/at “ Sunnu Villa” 

N.G.O. Road,VidyanagarPost,                                                       : Complainant

Kasaragod  Taluk & District -671123                       

(Adv: K. Shrikanta Shetty)

                                                And

Shiram Transpot Finance Co. Ltd,

Aramana   Arcade, 2^nd Floor, Bank Road,                                   : Opposite Party

Kasaragod-671121

Represented by its Manager.

(Adv: Babuchandran. K)

            ORDER

SRI.ROY PAUL     :PRESIDENT

This is a complaint filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to settle the loan account and to pay compensation and cost to the complainant

The gist of the complaint is that:-

            The complainant had availed a vehicle loan of Rs. 282478/- for the vehicle     KL-14 B-8080 from the opposite party and repaid Rs. 1, 89,530/- to the opposite party.  There after recently the complainant paid another sum of Rs. 12,100/- also to the opposite party, but the opposite party demanded another sum of Rs. 83,000/- also from the complainant which is unjust and illegal.  So there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and the complainant has suffered much hardship, mental agony, loss of time and money.  Hence the complaint.

            The opposite party entered appearance and submitted their written version before the Fora contending that the alleged payment of Rs.189530/- by the complainant is false, hence denied.  As per the agreement, as on 09/05/2015 the outstanding amount in the transaction is Rs. 259178 /-. The complainant is a habitual defaulter in the payment and he is liable to pay overdue interest of 3% per annum over the defaulted EMI.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and complaint may be dismissed with cost.

            There after as per the request of the both parties the matter referred to Lok Adhalath for settlement.  Subsequently both the party represented that matter settled for Rs. 1, 00,000/- to be paid by the complainant.  Thereafter it is also reported that the complainant has not turned up either for the payment of the settlement amount or to adduce evidence before the Fora. 

            In the result complaints stands dismissed for default.

      Sd/-                                                                                                                 Sd/-

MEMBER                                                                                                      PRESIDENT

Forwarded by Order

                                                                                    Senior Superintendent

Ps/