Kerala

Idukki

CC/175/2017

Joseph Ouseph - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Adv.M S VinayaRaj

29 Nov 2019

ORDER

DATE OF FILING : 17.8.2017

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 29^th day of November, 2019

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

SMT. ASAMOL. P MEMBER

CC NO.175/2017

Between

Complainant : Joseph, S/o. Ouseph,

Karoor House,

Vettimattom, Kalayanthani P.O.,

Thodupuzha, Idukki.

(By Adv: K.M. Sanu)

And

Opposite Parties : 1. The Manager,

Shriram Transport Finance

Company Ltd.,

1^st Floor, Kannaparambil Bldg.,

Mudavoor P.O., Vazhappilly,

Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam.

2. The Manager,

Shriram Transport Finance

Company Ltd.,

1^st Floor, Kannaparambil Bldg.,

Mudavoor P.O., Vazhappilly,

Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam.

(By Adv: Gem Korason)

 

O R D E R

 

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

Case of the complainant is that :

 

Complainant availed a vehicle loan of Rs.1,70,000/- from opposite party finance company on 20.5.2011 agreed to repay it in 36 monthly instalments at the rate of Rs.7000/- per month. The total loan amount including interest to be repaid was Rs.2,45,990/-. In the loan, complainant paid Rs.2,20,000/- in total and after remitting the amount, there was no communication on the part of the 2^nd opposite party. While so, two months back of filing this complaint, some of the staff of the opposite party bank called the complainant and demanded to pay Rs.1,50,000/- as loan due and

(cont....2)

- 2 -

on its reply he asked them to furnish his loan statement of account, but they failed to produce it. Again on 9.8.2017, the agent of 2^nd opposite party threatened the complainant that they will file criminal case against the complainant, if he fails to remit the loan amount by using his blank cheques. Also they threatened that they will take the vehicle forcibly from the custody of the complainant.

 

Complainant further averred that he is ready to make payments of instalments at reasonable interest, if the opposite parties would serve the loan account details to him. Hence alleging deficiency in service in realising exorbitant interest and other penal charges, complainant filed this petition against the opposite party seeking relief such as to direct the 1^st opposite party to settle the loan account as per the norms of the RBI and further direct the 1^st opposite party to pay cost.

 

Upon notice, opposite parties entered appearance and filed reply version admitting the loan transaction with the complainant. Opposite party further contended that the arbitration award is passed with respect to the matter and it is already adjudicated and hence the complaint is not maintainable herein. Opposite party further contended that as per the loan agreement dated 20.5.2011, complainant is bound to pay the loan amount of Rs.1,70,000/- and its interest of Rs.75,990/- in total Rs.2,45,990/- in 36 instalments at the rate of Rs.7000/- per month. The complainant had made default in payment of the amount. Moreover, the complainant further availed working capital loan on 21.12.2011 of Rs.5,684/- agreed to repay it along with its interest of Rs.508/- in 6 instalments. Then on the following dates, complainant availed working capital loans, that is, on 19.3.2012 Rs.6479/-, on 19.5.2012 Rs.14485/-, on 7.7.2012 Rs.5482/-, on 12.9.2012 Rs.6116/-, on 19.11.2012 Rs.5281/- and on 21.5.2014 Rs.17880/-. Complainant availed all these working capital loans with an agreement to repay it with respective interest along with the main loan. The contention put forward by the complainant is false and the opposite party is claiming the amount only which they legally entitled. The interest rate and instalments are specifically scheduled accordingly and the complainant had affixed his signature after knowing all these terms and conditions. The complainant is liable to pay over due charges for the delayed payments. Hence there is no cause of action against the opposite parties and none of the relief sought is allowable. (cont....3)

- 3 -

Evidence adduced by the complainant by way of proof affidavit and documents. The copy of the RC Book is marked as Ext.P1. From the opposite side, copy of loan cum hypothecation agreement and loan statement of account produced and marked as Exts.R1 and R2.

 

Heard both sides.

 

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

 

The POINT :- We have heard the counsels for both parties and had gone through the records. It is an admitted fact that the complainant availed a vehicle loan of Rs.1,70,000/- from opposite party bank on 20.5.2011 agreed to repay it with interest of Rs.75,990/- in 36 instalments at the rate of Rs.7000/- per month. As per the contention of the reply version, it is seen that complainant is bound to pay Rs.2,45,990/- in total in 36 instalments if he pay it regularly.

 

The learned counsel for the complainant argued that in the loan account, he paid Rs.2,20,000/- in total and thereafter there was no demand on the part of the opposite party. After a long period, that is, in the year 2018, opposite party demanded a huge amount by way of loan dues and it is against the norms of the RBI.

 

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite party vehemently argued that in addition to the loan amount, complainant availed six working capital loans from 19.3.2012 to 21.5.2014 with an agreement to pay it with the respective interest of each loan along with the main loan. The learned counsel further argued that the complaint is not maintainable herein, because the matter is already adjudicated through an arbitration award which was provided before filing the complaint. For substantiating this plea, opposite parties produced the arbitration award.

 

On evaluating the points of argument and the evidence on record, it is seen that the arbitration award is passed in this matter was on 14^th September 2017. On perusing the complaint, it is seen that, the

(cont....4)

- 4 -

complainant approached the Forum and filed this complaint on 17.8.2017, that is, one month before the date of arbitration award. Hence the question regarding the maintainability of the complaint has no legal footing because the complainant approached this Forum before passing the arbitration award and hence the issue is decided in favour of the complainant.

 

Then regarding the case of loan dues, on perusing the documents, it is seen that along with the main loan, complainant availed 6 working capital loan what is specifically stated in paragraph 2 of the reply version. This contention of the opposite party is not denied by the complainant or not challenged by the complainant with clear and cogent evidence. Hence the Forum is of a considered view that, complainant is legally bound to pay the balance amount in main loan along with the working capital loans and other legal charges which is entitled to the opposite party.

 

Hence on the basis of the above discussion, the Forum found that the complainant is legally bound to pay the balance loan amount to the opposite party.

 

Under the above circumstances, Forum direct the opposite parties to furnish detailed loan statement of account with calculating 12% interest on the defaulted instalments of the loan account and by avoiding other penal charges and serve the copy of the statement to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29^th day of November, 2019

 

 

Sd/-

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

SMT. ASAMOL. P, MEMBER

 

 

 

 

(cont....5)

- 5 -

 

APPENDIX

 

Depositions :

Nil.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 - copy of the RC Book is marked as Ext.P1.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Ext.R1 - copy of loan cum hypothecation agreement.

Ext.R2 - loan statement of account.

 

 

 

Forwarded by Order,

 

 

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT