DATE OF FILING : 2.8.2017
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI
Dated this the 30th day of August, 2018
Present :
SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT
SRI. BENNY. K. MEMBER
CC NO.161/2017
Between
Complainant : Shajan K. Devassy, S/o. K.K. Devassy,
Kattilparambil House,
Meencut P.O., Chithirapuram,
Idukki.
(By Adv: C.K. Babu)
And
Opposite Parties : 1. Shriram Transport Finance
Company Ltd.,
Kanakkalil Building,
Edassery Junction,
Near New bus stand Road,
Kattappana, Idukki.
2. Shriram Transport Finance
Company Ltd.,
Kannathu Building, 1st Floor,
Near Town Hall, Adimali – 685 561,
Idukki.
O R D E R
SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT
Case of the complainant is that,
Complainant availed a vehicle loan from the 1st opposite party bank for purchasing a Mahindra Thar. The loan amount is Rs.5,52,875/- and the finance charge of the loan is Rs.2,74,087/-. The complainant agreed to pay the loan total amount of Rs.8,26,962/- including interest in 60 monthly instalments starting from 5.9.2012. Unfortunately, complainant failed to remit the instalments regularly and each and every time of receiving the notice from 1st opposite party, complainant appeared before the 1st opposite party and remitted the instalment. Complainant further stated that on his request, the 2nd opposite party has issued a statement of account of the loan to the complainant on 5.7.2017. As per the above statement, the balance
(cont....2)
- 2 -
due in the loan account is Rs.8,82,539.59/-. As per the above statement, the complainant paid an amount of Rs.4,53,329/-. The complainant further stated that the said statement is totally incorrect and under the due column, 61 instalments are noted, instead of 60 instalments. In addition to it, another Rs.14,190/- is shown as due on 4.10.2012 and the total deficit in the receipt column shows Rs.41,328/-. On 5.7.2017, he paid an amount of Rs.13800/- but it is not entered in the statement. In total upto 5.7.2017, complainant paid an amount of Rs.5,08,457/- out of Rs.8,26,962/- and he is liable to pay only Rs.3,18,505/- as loan dues. Further stated that the opposite parties are charging huge amount without any basis and complainant is ready and willing to pay the outstanding amount as per law. But the opposite parties are not inclined to cure the defects in the loan statement. Hence alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties, complainant filed this petition seeking relief such as to direct the opposite parties to withdraw the balance statement of account dated 5.7.2017 and also restrain them from seizing the vehicle having Reg. No.KL-6F-7242 and also direct the opposite parties to pay compensation and cost.
Upon notice, opposite parties entered appearance and filed detailed reply version denying all the averments in the complaint. In their version, opposite parties further contended that, the version of the complainant is not correct since the opposite party is claiming the amount only which they are legally entitled. The instalments was paid by the complainant with huge delay and hence the opposite party is entitled to claim overdue charges for the same as per the terms of agreement. The complainant is not entitled to keep away from paying the due amount on the basis above said lame excuses. There is nothing happened as alleged and the allegation is only for the sake of the complainant. At the same time, opposite party is sustaining loss due to the act of the complainant.
Evidence adduced by the complainant by way of documents. Complainant filed copy of RC Book, copy of receipt dated 5.7.2017 and copy of statement of account dated 5.7.2017. These documents are marked as Exts.P1 to P3 respectively. From the opposite side, during the course of argument, they produced attested copy of an arbitration award dated 31.7.2017.
(cont....3)
- 3 -
The matter heard in detail. The point that arose for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?
The POINT :- It is an admitted fact that the complainant availed a vehicle loan from the 1st opposite party bank and failed to repay it regularly. While going through the Ext.P3 statement of account, which is served by the 1st opposite party, on request of the complainant on 5.7.2017, the complainant came to know that an amount of Rs.8,26,962/- is pending as loan arrears in his account as on 5.7.2017. Complainant is claiming that, as on 5.7.2017, he remitted an amount of Rs.5,08,457/- towards the loan account and as per loan agreement, he is entitled to remit an amount of Rs.3,18,505/- towards the loan account and he is ready and willing to remit that amount.
During the course of argument, opposite party produced one Arbitration Award dated 31.7.2017, to convince the Forum that the award is passed before filing this complaint before the Forum, in order to attract the decision of Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, pronounced in Jagadish Kanthila Vs. Bajaj Alliance company reported in CPJ 2016, Vol IV, P.235. On perusal of this Award and the original complaint, the Forum found that, the complaint is filed on 2.8.2017 and the Award was passed on 31.7.2018. On further perusal, the Forum found that, this award, which is passed on 31.7.2018, is typed in a stamp paper dated 2.8.2018. Further, it is noted that, the seal affixed on the face of the Award shows copy of the Award was ready on 31.7.2018. On seeing the discrepancies in the date of Award, date of copy ready for issue and the date of stamp paper where the Award is typed, the Forum re-opened the hearing suo moto for getting clarification in this matter. The above said irregularities in the date created a doubt, since the clarification given by the learned counsel is not satisfactory, Forum denied to accept the Arbitration Award.
On going through Ext.P3 statement of account, it is seen that, opposite party charged exorbitant amount as penal interest as well as other charges and the opposite party failed to produce any evidence to justify the statement of account or to convince the Forum under what authority they
(cont....4)
- 4 -
are collecting huge amount as over due charges and penal interest. Hence the claim of the opposite party cannot be accepted, because it lacks bonafides.
On the basis of the above discussion, the Forum is of a considered view that the allegation against the opposite party is sustainable and believable.
Hence the complaint allowed. Complainant is directed to remit an amount of Rs.3,18,505/- with 12% interest from 5.7.2017 to the opposite party within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the opposite party is at liberty to initiate further steps for realising the amount from the complainant. No cost is ordered.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of August, 2018
Sd/-
SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT
Sd/-
SRI. BENNY. K., MEMBER
APPENDIX
Depositions :
Nil.
Exhibits :
On the side of the Complainant :
Ext.P1 - Copy of RC Book.
Ext.P2 - Copy of receipt dated 5.7.2017.
Ext.P3 - Statement of account.
On the side of the Opposite Party :
Nil.
Forwarded by Order,
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
