Date of filing : 27-07-2011
Date of order 30-07-2012
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.188/2011
Dated this, the 30th day of July 2012
PRESENT
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER
SMT. K.G.BEENA : MEMBER
Abdulla Andhu, } Complainant
S/o.Andhu,
R/at Bandiyod, Kanmatta House,
Mangalpady,Kasaragod
(Adv.Jayanthlal, Kasaragod)
1. Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd, } Opposite parties
123, Angappa Naicken Street, Chennai
600001.
2. Shriram Transport Company Ltd,
Represented by its Branch Manager,
Nullippady, Kasaragod
(Adv. Ramakrishna.P, Kasaragod)
O R D E R
SMT.K.G.BEENA, MEMBER
The nutshell of the case of Sri.Abdulla Andhu is that he is the registered owner of the vehicle, KL.14F 495 which is hypothecated to opposite parties. Complainant has been paying the monthly instalments. Though complainant is ready and willing to repay the correct amount due thereon opposite parties is demanding huge amount calculating high interest penal interest and default interest than the amount due thereon. Opposite party company has taken over possession of the registration certificate, insurance policy tax token of the vehicle during April 2011, so he is unable to pay taxes or to ply the vehicle on road since tax is not accepted by the department without RC. So the complainant is not able to ply the vehicle on road for hire thereby suffered financial loss.
2. According to opposite parties, the complainant availed a loan of `1,00,000/- from them by executing a loan cum hypothecation agreement dated 30-10-2010 agreeing to pay the same in 36 monthly instalments of `4154/-. The loan was sanctioned for purchasing a TATA ACE vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL 14F 495 but the complainant committed default in repaying the loan amount. Moreover complainant is not a consumer. It is denied that opposite parties are in custody of RC, insurance policy, tax token etc. Complainant’s idea is to get rid of the liability to repay the loan amount by means of this complaint.
3. Complainant filed proof affidavit. Exts A1 & A2 marked. Opposite parties produced document which is marked as Exts B1 & B2. Both sides heard and documents perused.
4. The brief facts of the case of the complainant is that he has availed a vehicle loan from opposite parties for purchasing a TATA ACE vehicle. As per the hire purchase agreement. Ext.B1 complainant has to pay 36 monthly instalments of `4154/-per month. That was not being paid regularly. Another allegation of the complainant is that opposite parties has taken over possession of the registration certificate, insurance policy, tax token of the vehicle etc during 2011, which is highly necessary to ply the vehicle on road. Complainant filed IA 282/11 praying an order to issue the duplicate copy of the registration certificate of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-14F/495. IA allowed. But the complainant did not collect the duplicate copies from RTO as per order. Had he been in need of RC then he should have obtained duplicate RC as per interim order. The contention of opposite parties is that complaint raised all these allegations only to get rid of the liability to repay the loan amount by means of this complaint. The conduct of the complainant towards the non-compliance of IA order proves the contention of opposite parties is true.
5. While going through the deposition of the complainant, he admitted before the Forum that the vehicle involved in this case is being plied by Abdulla. Complainant is received `1000/- per day by plying the vehicle. He owned a ‘TATA ACE’ vehicle previously. Further there are contradiction in the deposition of the complainant before the Forum. “After registering the vehicle I received the RC from RTO office I don’t remember the date on which opposite parties took the original RC. All the original documents were with me for 5 years. Complainant admitted that all the original documents were with him for 5 years further till retention of RC by opposite party No.1 complainant paid all the instalments regularly. If it is true he might have paid first 5 years instalments regularly. But Ext.B2 is not tallying with his deposition. All these contradictions leads us to the statement of opposite parties that complainant is trying to get rid of the liability to repay the loan amount by means of this complaint.
In the result, complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts.
A1& A2 Customer copy.
B1. Loan Cum Hypothecation Agreement.
B2. Copy of Statement of Account as on 30-09-2011
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/ Forwarded by Order
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
