O R D E R
Sri. George Baby (President):
The complaint is filed u/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 by the complainant.
2. The case of the complainant is brief as follows:-The complainant had availed a financial assistance from the opposite parties in purchasing an Autorikshaw bearing register No. KL.62-3089. The complainant only earning for his livelihood is from the said Authorikshaw. The complainant has availed an amount of Rs. 1,40,000/- from the opposite party on the understanding that the said amount would be repaid in 36 installments. The EMI was fixed as Rs. 4,940/-. The complainant had paid all EMI’s without any default from 04/11/2011 to 04/12/2013. On 04/12/2013 the complainant was informed to the opposite parties to pay the remaining 10 installments in lumpsum. But the opposite parties were reluctant for the same and they demanded further 12 installments in addition to the remaining actual 10 installments and demanded Rs. 59,280/-. The complainant has placed a complaint to the District Police Chief in this regard. The complainant always showed his willing to pay the remaining 10 EMIs inlumpsum to the opposite parties. But opposite parties were not amenable for the same and they demanded Rs.1,08,680/- for the issuance of NOC to the complainant. According to the complainant the Act of opposite parties are unfair and they have committed deficiency in service.
3. This Forum entertained the complaint and issued notice to the opposite parties and in course they appeared and filed their version. The main contention of the opposite parties case as follows. The complaint is not maintainable and the complainant is not a consumer. The complainant had availed loan from the opposite parties in the tune of Rs. 1,52,000/-. The repayment period was 48 months with EMI’s on 4,940/-. The complainant paid only 22 installments and he had to pay further 26 installments. Several demands were made by the opposite parties, but the complainant was not willing to clear the arrears in installments. The complainant had filed several petitions before various authorities only with the intention to avoid legal actions against him. Hence the opposite parties pray to dismiss the complainant with their cost.
4. We peruse the complaint, version and records before us and we found the following issues for consideration.
(1) Whether the opposite parties had committed any deficiency in
service against this complainant?
(2) Regarding relief and cost?
5. In order to prove the case of the complainant he had filed proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination and examined him as PW1. Through PW1 Exhibit A1 to A4 and B1 were marked. No oral evidence was adduced from the side of the opposite parties. After the closure of evidence we heard both sides.
6. Point No.I:- The case of the complainant is that he had availed a financial assistance of Rs. 1,40,000/- from the opposite parties for the purchase of an Autorikshaw. The EMI fixed as Rs. 4,940/- and the duration for the said loan was 36 months. According to PW1 complainant he had paid 26 installments in the loan transaction without default up to 04/12/2013. Thereafter the complainant expressed his willingness to remit the remaining 10 installments in lumpsum. But the opposite parties were not ready to receive the said amount lumpsum instead they had unilaterally increased the repayment term furthermore 12 months. The PW1 had filed a complaint before the concerned police authority that is evident from Exhibits A3, A4 the communication from the office of the police chief in connection with Exhibit A3. The opposite parties were never stated anywhere that they had not unilaterally increased the period of loan. During the course of trial PW1 had filed a petition for directing the opposite parties to produce the loan agreement and the repayment schedule through IA.No.61/2017 and this Forum has allowed that IA. But the opposite parties were miserably failed to produce the loan agreement before this Commission. According to PW1’s contention that document is very vital for deciding the issues, such as whether the opposite parties had unilaterallyincreased the loan repayment period. It is clear from the non-production of that documents that the opposite parties had went to hide something from this Commission and hence we can draw an adverse inference against the opposite parties in this regard. The opposite parties another contention is that the petition is not maintainable before this Commission. The opposite parties were never stated a specific reason for the same in their version. It is admitted the opposite parties that the complainant had hired their service, in that circumstances the complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties as envisaged in Consumer Protection Act 1986. According to PW1 he had expressed his willingness to remit the remaining installments to the opposite parties on 04/12/2013. The opposite parties had not rebutted that contention through any evidence. In that situation the contention of PW1 is more probable. Then we can easily inferred that the opposite party had committed clear deficiency in service against the complainant. Point No. I found in favour of the complainant.
7. Point No. II:- As we already found that the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service and in that situation the complainant is entitled to get reliefs and cost from the opposite parties. Point No.2 is also found in favour of the complainant.
In the result the complaint is allowed and we pass the following order:
(1). The complainant is directed to pay the remaining 10 monthly
installments of the loan to the opposite parties in lumpsum within
30 days of receipt of this order with 10% interest from the date of
default of the loan till its payments and on acceptance of the said
amount, it is directed to the opposite parties to issue non-
objection certificate to the complainant with regard to the vehicle
bearing Reg. No. KL-62-3089 within 15 days from the date of
acceptance of entire payments.
(2). The opposite parties are directed to pay an amount of Rs.
10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) with 10% interest from the
date of receipt of the order to the complainant as compensation for
their deficiency in service.
(3).The opposite parties are directed to pay an amount of Rs. 2,500/_
(Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred only) as cost of this
proceedings with 10% interest from the date of receipt of this order
onwards.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30thday of October, 2020.
(Sd/-)
George Baby,
(President)
Smt. N. ShajithaBeevi (Member-I) : (Sd/-)
Sri.NishadThankappan (Member-II): (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1:Satheesh N.B
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1:copy of the RC Book.
A2:copy of the contract carriage permit dated: 04/11/2011.
A3: copy of the complaint sent to the District Police Superintendent by the
complainant.
A4: copy of petition receipt dated: 04/06/2014.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:
B1:copy of arbitration award dated: 23/09/2016.
Copy to:- (1) Satheesh N.B,
Nooranadveedu,Neeliplavu Post,
Chittar, Konni.
(2) The Manager,
SML Finance Ltd.,
Puthuparambil Building,1st Floor, Near Aban Junction,
Punalur Road,Pathanamthitta.
(3) The Managing Director,
SML Finance Ltd.,
Corporate Office, SML Building, Toll Junction,
Edappally, Ernakulam.
(4) The Stock File.
