KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
APPEAL NO.393/2011
JUDGMENT DATED:24.01.2012
PRESENT:
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
1. The Manager
Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd.,
Regd Office 123,
Angappa Naicken Street,
Chennai 600 001.
2. The Branch Manager
Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd.,
Land Mark Building, New Bus Stand, : APPELLANTS
Kasargod.
3. Prejith Kumar,
Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd.,
Land Mark Building, New Bus Stand,
Kasargod.
(By Adv. Narayan R.)
Vs.
Siddeek K. S/o C. Mohammed,
Kolokatta House,Cherkala, : RESPONDENT
Chengala P.O., Kasargod.
(By Adv. C. Mohanan)
JUDGMENT
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
Appellants are the opposite parties in CC.127/06 in the file of CDRF, Kasaragod. The appellants are under orders to refund a sum of Rs.81,500/- with interest at 12% from the date of complaint and also to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- and cost of Rs.10,000/-.
2. The case of the complainant is that he had purchased a Minidor Bajaj Tempo on 17.02.2006 from the opposite parties fixing the sale price of Rs.1,20,000/- out of which Rs.50,000/- was paid in cash and the balance amount was provided by the opposite parties as loan. At the time of the transaction it was agreed to hand over the vehicular documents within 7 days from the date of agreement and also to provide the insurance and road tax documents. The complainant is engaged in the business of supply on hire goods like tables, chairs, tarpaulin, utensils etc. For want of the vehicular documents the vehicle was stopped by the traffic police and imposed fine on him. Repeated requests for the supply of documents was not helpful. After lawyer notice the complaint is filed claiming a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation and to deduct interest collected for 6 months of instalments which he had paid.
3. Subsequently the vehicle was seized by the opposite parties while the case was pending, on 11.12.06 and he has amended the complaint seeking for the return of a sum of Rs.81,500/- etc.
4. The 2nd opposite party/Branch Manager has filed version contending that as per the hypothecation agreement executed on 15.3.06 he had agreed to pay a loan amount in 30 equal monthly instalments but he paid only 6 instalments. Hence the opposite parties are entitled to repossess the vehicle.
5. Along with the version the opposite party filed application to refer the matter for arbitration and contended that the Forum has no jurisdiction. The same was dismissed. The matter was taken up by the opposite parties before the High Court of Kerala. The above Writ Petition was dismissed.
6. An Advocate Commissioner was appointed at the instance of the complainant to seize RC and the loan file with respect to the vehicle. The Commissioner could not recover the same.
7. The evidence adduced consisted of the proof affidavit filed by the complainant and Exts.A1 to A17, Ext.B1 and C1.
8. The repossession of the vehicle on 11.2.07 during the pendency of the proceedings stands admitted. It has come out in evidence that the complainant had purchased the vehicle in auction from the opposite parties on 17.2.06 on payment of Rs.50,000/- and loan provided for the balance amount of Rs.70,000/- which is to be paid in 30 monthly instalments of Rs.3150/- for 29 instalments and Rs.2065/- for the last instalment. The complaint was filed on 30.10.06, ie after about 8 months of purchase. The complainant has also remitted 6 EMIs which according to the opposite parties were not paid in time. During the pendency of the present proceeding as mentioned earlier on 11.12.07 the vehicle was forcibly repossessed by the opposite parties which would be about one year and 8 months after the date of purchase. The evidence of the complainant that he was not handed over the vehicular documents stands not rebutted as such. It is admitted by the complainant that he has run the vehicle to an extent of 6000 Kms. Of course there is no objective evidence adduced to sustain the above case. The complainant had also filed a criminal complaint against the forceable repossession. As to the exact amount remitted, no receipts have been produced although it is contended that a sum of Rs.31,500/- has been remitted. The complainant had issued Ext.A1 notice dated:29.6.06 seeking for the vehicular documents.
9. According to he counsel for the appellants/opposite parties the vehicle is still with the opposite parties and that it will not fetch any amount in the open market. In view of the fact that the opposite parties have not adduced any evidence in this regard before the Forum the above submission has no relevance as such. All the same it has to be noted that the vehicle was in the possession of the complainant till it was repossessed on 11.12.07 that is up to one year and 8 months since the date of purchase. According to the complainant he could not use the vehicle at all and that he had run the vehicle only to an extent of 6000 Kms. As already noted above the complainant has not adduced any objective evidence in this regard.
10. In the circumstances we find that the exact amount paid by the complainant would work out to Rs.50,000/- down payment and Rs.18,900/- the amount due for 6 instalments at the rate of Rs.3150/-. In the circumstances it would be reasonable to direct the opposite parties to refund Rs.50,000/-. The opposite parties/appellants are directed to refund Rs.50,000/- to the complainant with interest at 12% from 30.10.2006 the date of complaint. The direction to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- is set aside. The direction to pay cost is sustained. The order of the Forum is modified accordingly. The opposite parties will make the payment within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant will be entitled for interest at 15% from 25.1.2012 the date of this order.
In the result the appeal is allowed in part as above.
Office will forward the LCR along with a copy of this order to the Forum.
JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT
VL.
