DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 9^th day of August, 2023

Present  : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President

             : Smt.Vidya A., Member                

              : Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member          Date of filing: 22/02/2021                             

     CC/34/2021

Soujath W/o Ali Akbar,

Cherikkallinmel House,

Mannarkkad (P.O)

Mannarkkad Taluk,

Palakkad Dist – 678 582                                                 -    Complainant

(By Adv. K.Dhananjayan)

V/s

1. SML Finance Ltd.,

    NH 47, Marutha Road Post,

    Coimbatore Road,

    Palakkad Dist,

    Pin – 678 007.

2. M/s. SML Finance Ltd.,

    Benthay Complex,

    Kunnamkulam – Thrissur Road,

    Kunnamkulam Post,

    Thrissur Dist. – 680 503

3. The Managing Director/Authorized Signatory,

    M/s. SML Finance Ltd.,

    Benthany Complex,

    Kunnamkulam – Thrissur Road,

    Kunnamkulam Post,                                                  -        Opposite parties  

    Thrissur Dist. – 680 503

    (All Ops by Adv. K.A.   Kailas)                                             

O R D E R 

By Sri.Krishnankutty.N.K., Member

1.  Pleadings of the complainant in brief.        

      The complainant had availed a hire purchase loan of Rs. 62500/- from the opposite party company on 01.04.2017. The loan along with interest @ 11.5% was to be repaid in 35 EMIs of Rs.2335/- each. The grievance is that the opposite party did not issue NOC to lift the hypothecation noted in the RC even after paying the entire amount by way of EMIs as per the agreed terms. Hence she approached this Commission seeking directions to issue NOC for lifting the hypothecation charge along with a compensation of Rs. 100,000/- and cost of Rs.30,000/-.

2.   Notices were issued to the opposite parties. They entered appearance and filed their joint version. According to them, the complainant has to still pay Rs.8556/- to close the loan account and that is the reason for not issuing the NOC and that they are ready to issue the same once the entire liability in the loan account is cleared by the complainant.

3.   Based on the pleadings of the complainant and opposite parties the following issues were framed for consideration.

1. Whether the non-issuance of NOC by the OPs is due to the non-payment of arrears as alleged by opposite parties ?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties ?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed ?
4. Reliefs, cost and compensation if any ?

4.  The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Ext.A1 to A9 as evidence. All these were objected to by the opposite parties on the ground that they are photocopies. However there was no allegation that they are forged/concocted. Hence the objection is overruled. Ext.A1 is the letter from the Opposite party to the complainant, A2 is a sheet containing repayment details, A3 is the copy of RC Book, A4 is the tax invoice of the vehicle purchased out of  the loan, A5 is the insurance policy of the vehicle, A6 series is a bunch of receipts for the EMIs  paid.(34 No.s), A7 is the copy of legal notice issued to the opposite parties by the complainant, A8 is the postal cover addressed to OP1 returned with endorsement “Left” and A9 is the postal acknowledgement from the opposite parties 2 &3.       

5.  The Opposite parties filed proof affidavit and marked Ext.B1 & B2 as evidence. Ext.B1 is the Hire Purchase agreement executed by the complainant at the time of availing the loan, and Ext.B2 is the loan account statement of the complainant.

6. Issue 1 & 2

      The crucial documents in adjudicating this case are Ext.B1 and B2 marked by the opposite party. Further, the counsel for the complainant has submitted his argument notes based on these document, leaving aside all the documents marked by the complainant. As per Ext.B1, the hire purchase agreement, the loan is to be repaid in 36 EMIs of Rs.2335/- each and not 35 installments as claimed by the complainant and as per the loan account statement marked as Ext.B2 the total EMIs paid is only 35 and hence an EMI of Rs.2335/- is still outstanding. Apart from this, Rs.2864/- is due as compensation for delayed payment and Rs.3357/- as GST. Hence Rs.8556/- is still due from the complainant. In the argument note put forth by the counsel for the complainant, it is admitted that one EMI is still outstanding.

          From the Loan Account statement(Ext.B2) it can be further seen that the  complainant has not been making repayments on the specified dates mentioned in the Agreement, and hence liable to pay compensation @ 3% on monthly rest for the delayed period. The calculation for Rs.2864/- as the compensation is clearly mentioned in the proof affidavit of opposite parties as well as arguments notes submitted by their counsel, which has not been objected to by the complainant.

          Now the, only question left out is what the GST amount of Rs.3357/- shown as outstanding is. Neither in the version nor the proof affidavit or Argument notes, the opposite parties have given any specific explanation to this. In the absence of any explanations to this the OPs are not justified in demanding this amount from the complainant. To that extent conduct of opposite party is illegal.

          As the loan account has not been closed as proved by the evidence as above, the complainant is not entitled to get NOC from the Opposite parties for lifting the hypothecation charge. Hence the OPs are in order in not issuing the NOC. However, the claim of the OPs for GST has not been justified with satisfactory evidence.  Therefore the complainant is allowed in part, ordering the following.  

1. The OPs are directed to issue NOC to the complainant after recovering Rs.2335/- being the EMI arrears and Rs.2864/- towards the compensation for delayed EMIs. Opposite parties are not entitled to claim GST.
2. The opposite parties are liable to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation for making an illegal claim of GST without sufficient evidence.
3. The OPs are also directed to pay Rs.5000/- as cost to the complainant.

       The above amounts are to be paid within 45 days of receipt of this order, failing which the opposite parties are liable to give Rs.250/- as solatium  per month or part thereof till the date of payment.

                   Pronounced in open court on this the 9^th  day of  August, 2023.

Sd/-

                                                                                       Vinay Menon V

                                            President

         Sd/-                                          Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                   Member

APPENDIX

Documents marked from the side of the complainant:

Ext. A1: Copy of letter written by Opposite parties to the complainant                       

             Dated 10/05/2019. 

Ext. A2: Sheet containing repayment details.

Ext. A3: Copy of R.C. Book of the vehicle financing by the OPs.

Ext. A4: Tax Invoice of the vehicle dated 01.04.2017 for Rs.59750/-

Ext. A5: Insurance Policy of the Vehicle financed by Ops.

Ext. A6: Bunch of 34 receipts of payment of EMIs.

Ext. A7: Copy of Legal notice issued by the complainant to OPs dated 14.10.2020.

Ext. A8: Postal Cover addressed to OP1 returned undelivered.

Ext. A9: Postal acknowledgement from OP2 &OP3.

Documents marked from the side of opposite parties  :

Ext. B1: Hire Purchase agreement executed by complainant dated 08/04/2017.

Ext. B2: Statement of the loan account of the complainant.

Witness examined from the complainant’s side           : NIL

Witness examined from the opposite parties side        : NIL

Cost Witness : Nil

Cost : Rs.5,000/-

NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.