Kerala

StateCommission

A/13/673

SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

SOMASEKHARAN NAIR - Opp.Party(s)

NARAYAN.R

26 Feb 2015

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO.673/2013

JUDGMENT DATED : 26.02.2015

 

(Appeal filed against the order in CC.No.60/2013 on the file of CDRF, Pathanamthitta order dated : 19.10.2013)

PRESENT

SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIALMEMBER

SRI.V.V.JOSE : MEMBER

APPELLANTS

1. M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd,

Administrative Office: 101-105,

Shiv Chambers, Sector – 11,

CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai – 400 614

2. The Branch Manager,

M/s.Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd,

No.161/130/C,

Geetha commercial complex,

Near YMCA, M.C.Road,

Kottayam – 686 001

3. The Branch Manager,

M/s.Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd,

Nanthiyathu Plaza, College Junction,

Pathanamthitta – 686 645

(By Adv.Sri.Narayan.R)

　

VS

　

　

RESPONDENT

Somasekharan Nair,

Kaniparambil House,

Kanjeettukara.P.O

Ayroor Village,

Ranny Taluk – 689 616

Pathanamthitta

(By Adv.Sri.S.A.Karim)

JUDGMENT

SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR :JUDICIAL MEMBER

Appellants were the opposite parties in CC.No.60/2013 in the CDRF, Pathanamthitta. The complainant alleged that he had availed a loan of Rs.70,000/- from the first opposite party for purchasing the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL 09-C 6958. He defaulted repayment of the loan and on expiry of the period in the loan agreement, the second opposite party issued notice directing him to close the loan. There upon the complainant and the second opposite party entered into an amicable settlement. As per the settlement the second opp.party advised the complainant to pay Rs.70,000/- as final settlement. Accordingly the complainant paid the entire amount on 06.12.2011 before the third opposite party and they agreed to issue NOC within seven days from 06.12.2011. As per the assurance given by opposite parties 2 & 3 the complainant sold the vehicle to one Omanakuttan but they failed to issue NOC to the complainant. So in the transaction between the complainant and Omanakuttan Rs.27, 500/- is due to the complainant. The person now in possession of the vehicle could not change ownership in the RC book. Thus the opposite parties committed deficiency in service.

2. Before the consumer forum only the third opposite party filed version. The third opposite party admitted the loan transaction and the default committed by the complainant. But contended that the complainant even now has not discharged the debt. Till date the complainant has not approached the company for obtaining NOC. The complainant never entrusted any amount with the third opposite party. Until the entire amount due from him is paid no document allowing lifting the hypothecation can be given. It was also contended that the consumer forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain the complainant as no consumer dispute is involved. Further jurisdiction of the consumer forum is excluded as per the agreement between the parties.

3. The consumer forum recorded the oral evidence of the complainant and one witness and marked Exts.A1 to A3 on the side of the complainant. The third opposite party examined one witness and marked Exts.B1 & B2. The consumer forum holding that non issuance of NOC is an illegal act allowed t he complaint and directed the opposite parties to issue NOC for the complainants vehicle within 20 days from the date of order and pay compensation of Rs.5000/- and cost of Rs.1000/-. In case of failure to issue NOC the complainant was allowed to realize Rs.50,000/- with future interest . The opposite parties are challenging the said decision of the consumer forum. The question is whether the order of the consumer forum can be sustained.

4. It is an admitted fact that the complainant had availed loan from the first opposite party and purchased the vehicle bearing Reg.NO.KL9 C 695.According to the complainant the loan availed is Rs.70,000/-. But the opposite parties have produced Ext.B1 loan cum hypothecation agreement dated 29.04.2009 as per which the loan availed was Rs.1, 10,000/-. Obviously, the complainant has concealed the truth regarding the actual loan transaction. But it is admitted in the complaint that the complainant defaulted loan repayments and on expiry of the period of the loan he was asked to settle the transaction. It is seen from Ext.B1 that the loan has to be repayed in 24 instalments of Rs.6173/- each (apart from the last payment). The interest payable was at 17% per annum. The total amount payable was Rs.1,48.248/- at the end of the period of the loan on 01.05.2011. Admittedly, no amount was paid. It was when notice was issued to the complainant to settle the transaction he approached the second opp.party and allegedly settled for Rs.70,000/-. There is absolutely no evidence to indicate such a settlement. The allegation is that he paid the entire amount of Rs.70,000/-on 06.12.2011 as per EXt.A1 which is styled as a temporary receipt issued from the Kottayam branch . It is true that in Ext.A1 at the top left of the receipt it is written “ file closed ”. But the authenticity of the writing is a matter of suspect for the reason mentioned earlier. There is no evidence to indicate payment of any other amount to the opp.parties. There is also no evidence as to the mutual settlement of the transaction. If that be so, absolutely no cause of action can arise from the alleged transfer of the vehicle by the complainant to Omanakuttan. The complainant is not entitled to NOC before the transaction is settled. The attempt of the complainant appears to be to obtain NOC misleading the consumer forum and surprisingly he has succeeded in that attempt. It follows that the consumer forum erred in allowing the complaint. There is absolutely no merit in the complaint. Hence the appeal is liable to be allowed.

In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order of consumer forum Pathanamthitta in CC.No.60/2013 dated 10.05.2013 is set aside. The complaint is dismissed. The respondent / complainant is directed to pay cost of Rs.5000/- to the appellants.

K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIALMEMBER

 

V.V.JOSE : MEMBER

Be/

 

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　

KERALA STATE

CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION

SISUVIHARLANE

VAZHUTHACADU

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NO.673/2013

JUDGMENT

DATED : 26.02.2015

 

BE/