IN THE CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL  FORUM, KOLLAM

DATED THIS THE  19^th      DAY OF  MARCH , 2013

Present: Smt. G.Vasanthakumari,President

Adv.Ravisusha, Member

CC.NO.111/2007

SMT.K. GOMATHIAMMA,

AMBANATTUVILA VEEDU,

PALLIMON P.O, VIA KANNANALLOOR,

KOLLAM- 691676                                                                              - COMPLAINANT

 (ADV.S.K.PRAKASH SATHIANATHAN,KOLLAM)

V/S

1.       SECRETARY,

PALLIMON SHEEROLPATHAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY  KLIPTHAM NO,

QUE.139,APCOS (D) PALLIMON P.O, VIA KANNANALOOR,

KOLLAM- 691576 ) 

2.       DIARY DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,

DIARY DEVELOPMENT  OFFICE,

CHATHANOOR P.O,

 CHATHANOOR, KOLLAM.

3.       DISTRICT NODAL OFFICER,

DIARY DEVELOPMENT OFFICE,

KOLLAM COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION,

P.O KOLLAM-13

                      4. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,  DIARY DEVELOPMENT OFFICE,

            PLAVINMOODU, PATTOM- P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.             -OPPOSITE PARTY

ORDER

SMT.G.VASANTHAKUMARI, PRESIDENT

Complaint filed  under section  12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 

Complainants case  is that the complainant  is a consumer Under section  2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, that the  service  rendered by the   opposite parties  is service under section  2 (1) (0) of the consumer Protection Act, that the complainant  availed  financial  assistance from the 1^st opposite party  for purchasing a vehicle  bearing Reg:No:KL-02-P-6408  for the purpose of using  it as contract carriage, that the finance  amount  granted by the opposite  party   to the complainant  was the 80% of the price   of the vehicle,  that as per the direction of the  1^st  opposite party the complainant     paid Rs. 89500/-+Rs. 11000/- and  Rs. 5000/- to the 1^st  opposite party, that the amount was  utilized  for purchasing the vehicle, that as per the agreement the loan amount has to be paid  back in 34 monthly  instalments of  Rs. 10725/-, that now the complainant  has asked for the statements of repayments  and sanctioned amount by the 1^st opposite  party, that besides the 1^st  opposite party  demanded a huge amount   of  Rs. 3,50,000/- more  to close  the account and threatened the complainant that 1^st opposite  party will seize  the vehicle and the insurance  premium of the vehicle is kept by the 1^st opposite party by causing irreparable  hardships to the complainant by not producing the same  for the cabin fitness  test  of the vehicle  and thus  the vehicle is in the  garage  enable to plays  but  now the opposite party  is trying  to seize  the vehicle  alleging  huge dues   towards  instalments, that the complainant  has asked  for the correct  statement  of accounts from the 1^st opposite party, but the request  is declined  with intention  to seize the vehicle  alleging huge over dues, that the 2^nd opposite  party  sanctioned loan  amount to the complainant  and it was illegally availed by the 1^st opposite  party  for the complainant and  using that amount 1^st opposite party  gave financial assistance to the complainant and so 2^nd opposite party also is to  produce the statement of account regarding the loan availed  for the  complainant, that there is unfair trade practice and hence this complainant to direct opposite party 1 and 2 to produce correct statement  of accounts, for  compensation, to restrain  opposite  party 1 from seizing  the vehicle contract  carriage bearing Reg. No. KL -2-P-6408 and for costs  of the case.

            Opposite parties 1 and 2  entered appearance and filed  separate versions.  Opposite party 1 contended  that the  complaint is not   maintainable either is law or on facts, that the complainant  is not  a Consumer  within the meaning of consumer   protection Act, that  the  complainant   obtained   vehicle bearing Reg: N: KL2-P-6408 from  the opposite party on the basis   of a hire purchase agreement on 04-03-2003 and  not  on the basis  of loan  transaction, and since the relationship   of the complainant  and the opposite party is   that of a Hirer  and owner this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain  any dispute  in respect of the subject matter, that the  relationship  between the  complainant  and the opposite parties  are purely contractual and there  is no  reason for  any deficiency  of service  and there  is no violation  of the terms  of the contract on the part  of the opposite party,  that it is the complainant  who  violated the terms  of the  contract and approached this Forum by  suppressing  material facts, that the total  amount    advanced  by the opposite party is Rs. 4,00,000/-  which is to be  paid  with  interest  at the rate of 13.89% and the hire period is 59 months, that the 1^st  instalment is to be paid on 04-05-03 and the last instalment date is 04.03.2008,  that every instalment is  to be paid on the 1^st day of  every month, that if the  hirer commits  default   in payment of the hire charges in time, the Hirer is liable  to pay overdue  charges   at  the  rate of 3% per month, that on fulfillment  of the terms  and conditions the complainant  has an  option to purchase the vehicle also, that the complainant  is a chronic defaulter  and has to suffer   overdue charges , that the complainant   being a chronic defaulter is supplied with detailed statement of accounts all times even without any demand, that has to pay a  balance of Rs. 2,34,212/-,  that the allegation that only  a meager amount  is due  to the opposite party  is  without  any  bonafide, that there is no demand  for settlement of accounts  from the side   of the  complainant, that the opposite  party is  ready  and willing  to furnish  statement  of accounts  which has been already tendered   to him, that   being  a registered  owner   opposite  party  1 has  all the power to repossess  the  vehicle  if the complainant  makes  defaults  in payment, that the  complainant   has  approached  this forum with unclean  hands and the complaint is only to be dismissed   with cost.

            Opposite party 2 contended  that the complaint is not  maintainable  either in law or on facts,  that the  complainant  is not   a Consumer  of the 2^nd opposite party, that opposite  party 2  not offered  any service to the complainant   to attract section. 2(1) (0) of  the Act, that the complainant   has availed a loan from 2^nd opposite party  for purchasing the vehicle but the  loan  transaction was taken over  by the 1^st  opposite  party as per the request  of the  complainant, that no account is maintained   by the    opposite party  2 in the name  of the complainant  and the complaint  is to dismissed  with cost. 

            Points that would arise for consideration are:

1.     Whether  the complaint  is  maintainable?

2.     Whether there is any deficiency in service   from the side  of  the  opposite parite?

3.     Reliefs and costs?

The evidence in this  case consists of the oral  testimony of the complainant  as PW1 and Exbts P1  to P11 and Exbts D1 to D6.

The points:-  The crucial  question to be considered  in this case is whether  the  case  is maintainable  before this Forum.  Admittedly   the  relationship between the complainant  and the 1^st and 3^rd opposite party   is governed by Ext. D1 agreement entered into between the complainant  and 1^st opposite  party on 04-03-2004.  Complainant who was examined before this forum as Pw1 would swear  before  the forum that” Opposite party 1 and 3 bpambn  execute  sNbvXn«pff   agreement  XpIsb kw_Ôn¨v XÀ¡w h¶t¸mgmWv Rm³ Cu case file sNbvXX

.   Settlement  of account  s\ kw_Ôn¨pff XÀ¡¯n Hcp  civil tImSXmsb kao]nbv¡p¶Xnev³ XÀ¡anà “Further down  he would swear  before the forum  that “]pXnb Hcp   contract carriage  bus hm§nbv¡p¶XmWv. Rm³  OP1-s\ kao]n¨Xv. “ Further down he would  swear before the forum that “ hml\w  Ct¸mgpw Fsâ ssIhiw D­v. hml\w HmSn¨v  business \S¯mdpt­m D­­v.

It follows  that the complainant  availed financial assistance from the  1^st  opposite  party  for purchasing the vehicle  bearing registration  number KL-02-P-6408  for commercial  purpose of using  it as  a contract  carriage.    So he  is not a  Consumer  to approach  this  Forum by making use  of the provisions of the consumer Protection Act.  So also he himself  has admitted that when some  dispute arose  between them  regarding settlement of accounts   he filed this  complaint.  It is well settled that such dispute  does not come  in the category  of ‘ Consumer Dispute’ and the complainant  was always  fee  and is also still  free to file  civil  suit to redress  his grievances.

             In the result, the complaint is dismissed as  not  maintainable.  No order  as to cost.

             Dated this the 28^th day of February,  2013.

                                                                        G.VASANTHAKUMARI

                                                                        Adv. RAVI SUSHA

Witness of the complainant

PW1- Sri. Brahmanandhan

Documents  of the complainant

Exbt.P1- Photocopy of RC Book

Exbt.P2- Letter  dated 20.03.2003

Exbt.P3- Receipts

Exbt.P4- Order  of High court

Exbt.P5- Letter dated  21/02/08

Exbt. P6-Postal Receipt

Exbt.P7- Acknowledgement Card

 Exbt.P9- Letter dated 06/12/2007

Exbt. P10- Letter from opposite party to complainant

Exbt.P11- Invoice

Witness of the opposite party – Nil

Documents  of the opposite party. Exbt.D1 to Exbt. D6

Ext.D1- Agreement

Exbt.D2- Receipt

Exbt.D3- Receipt dated 14.03.2003

Exbt. D4- Receipt dated 05-02-2003

Exbt. D5- Cheque

Exbt.D6- Cheque dated 04-03-2003