DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 23rd day of January 2013
Present : Smt.Seena H, President
: Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member
: Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member Date of filing:
(C.C.No.90/2012)
Sindhukumar,
S/o.Narayanan,
Madathil House,
Panaparambu,
Kadukkamkunnu,
Malampuzha, Palakkad - Complainant
(By Adv.M.C.Kuriyachan)
V/s
Sreeram Transport Finance Company,
Sunshine Complex,
T.B.Road, Palakkad
Rep.by its Area Manager - Opposite party
(By Adv.B.Kamalchand)
O R D E R
By Smt.PREETHA G NAIR, MEMBER
The complainant has approached the opposite party for purchasing an old lorry for his livelihood. Then the opposite party demanded the documents of the Registration Certificate, Insurance and Tax receipt of the vehicle for availing loan. After complying the requirements of the opposite party, they had given loan of Rs.2,25,000/- for purchasing the lorry KL-11-F-3096 of 1996 model. Then the complainant had handed over the documents like RC book etc to one Mr.Krishnakumar and according to his advise he approached the opposite party company. As per the direction of the officials of the opposite party, the complainant has signed and given the agreement book, which is printed and not filled up, blank fifty rupee stamp paper and signed blank pronotes as borrower and Manikandan as guarantor. Also the complainant had given 4 blank signed cheques of South Indian Bank in which the account was opened at the initiation of Mr.Krishnakumar and the opposite party.
On 31/8/2009 the opposite party had given loan of Rs.2,25,000/- to the complainant and agreed to be repaid the amount within 30 monthly equal installments with interest and the total amount to be repaid was Rs.3,10,494/-. Thereafter the R.C.book, Permit, Insurance etc. was changed to the name of the complainant and after that the documents are under the custody of opposite party. Further the complainant is going as a cleaner with the help of other drivers and he has repaid an amount of Rs.2,40,000/- towards the loan amount. On 6/1/12 when the vehicle was given to the van driver one Mr.Santhosh for repairing it in Sreekrishna Auto Garage and the repairing was being undergoing by one Mr.Krishnakumar, the official of opposite party alongwith other three persons came to that workshop. Then the persons alongwith Krishnakumar took the lorry forcefully and the vehicle was taken to the yard of the opposite party at Kannanur. The copies of RC book, insurance and tax receipts etc. were also taken by them alongwith the vehicle.
Immediately after knowing the fact, the complainant approached to the opposite party and the officials did not entertain since the Branch Manager was absent. Again the complainant approached to the office and on that date the officials threatened the complainant that the vehicle will be sold if he is not paying Rs.31,500/- within 10 days. Thereafter the complainant borrowed Rs.31,500/- from his friend and paid to the opposite party. But the vehicle was not released by the opposite party even after the payment. Again they demanded to pay a further amount of Rs.2,00,000/- within one month or the vehicle will be sold on auction. The complainant lost his income and his family striving for their livelihood. Then the complainant has preferred a complaint before Town South Police Station as Crime No.261/2012. The vehicle was kept in a good condition and that will be worth for Rs.5 lakhs and he was earning a saving of Rs.15,000/- per month. The complainant is liable to pay Rs.6,000/- to the Labours Welfare fund and the vehicle tax. The act of opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complainant prays an order directing the opposite party to
1.Return the lorry No.KL-11-F-3096 under the custody of opposite party,
2.Pay Rs.2,61,800/- as the compensation for mentally agony and
Damages.
Opposite party filed version stating the following contentions. The complainant availed financial services from the opposite party for purchasing a Ashok Leyland Lorry. The complainant as the borrower and Manikandan as guarantor entered into a loan cum hypothecation agreement with the opposite party on 31/8/2009 for purchasing a lorry bearing registration No.KL-11-F-3096. The amount advanced to the complainant is Rs.2,25,000/- and the amount has to be repaid within 30 monthly installments alongwith interest and financial charges thereon. Thus the total amount agreed to be repaid by the complainant is Rs.3,10,494/-. Apart from that the opposite party has paid the insurance to the vehicle and that amount will come to Rs.36,483/-. Also the complainant has availed a tyre loan for that vehicle for an amount of Rs.20,000/-. As per the loan agreement the complainant is bound to pay delayed payment charges @3% per month for the defaulted amount. The opposite party had never insisted to give any blank cheques, RC book of the vehicle and any other documents from the complainant, nor has received it also.
The complainant was never a prompt payer of the monthly installments. He used to pay the monthly installments as and when he liked, since that reason the complainant is liable to pay delay payment charges and other charges towards the loan amount. The complainant used to pay the monthly installments only when the officials of the opposite party has requested him twice or thrice. But even after repeated demands the complainant again failed to repay the installments in proper time and again the officials of the opposite party went to request to pay the installment amount, at that time he surrendered the vehicle. Thereafter the opposite party sent notice to the complainant and the guarantor on 10/1/2012 stating that they have made a due of Rs.2,23,881/- as on 10/01/2012. Even after receipt of the notice the complainant as well as the guarantor kept mum. Then again the opposite party through their lawyer sent a lawyer notice on 27/1/12 to the complainant and guarantor stating that they have made a due of Rs.2,23,881/- as on 10/1/12 failing which the vehicle will be sold in public auction. The notice was also received by both of them. The complainant has kept the vehicle in a very bad condition and hence the opposite party has incurred huge expenses for bringing the vehicle to a safe custody. Thus the opposite party suffered a sum of Rs.23,000/- and for that the complainant himself is liable. Also the complainant is liable to pay overdue charges of Rs.69,524.72 since the complainant was chronic defaulter. The complainant knows completely regarding the details of each and every legal action taken by the opposite party against him. Now the complainant is liable to pay Rs.2,26,556.72 to the opposite party towards the loan amount. As per the loan agreement the complainant is bound to pay the loan amount along with interest till the realization date. Without paying the amount he is claiming huge amounts from the opposite party, which cannot be allowed on any terms. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party. Hence the opposite party prays that dismiss the complaint with costs.
Complainant and opposite party filed affidavit. Ext.A1 to A7 marked on the side of the complainant. Ext.B1 to B9 marked on the side of the opposite party. Opposite party cross examined as DW1.
Heard both parties.
Issues to be considered are
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party ?
2. If so, what is the relief and cost ?
Issue No.1 & 2
We perused relevant documents on record. As per Ext.B2 the loan sanctioned for an amount of Rs.2,25,000/- with 15.065% of interest and the total amount payable is Rs.3,10,494/-. As per the agreement the amount has to be repaid within 30 monthly installments along with interest and financial charges thereon. The 1st installment was Rs.11,078/- and the 2nd to 29th installment was Rs.10,325/-. The last installment was Rs.10,316/- and the last date of payment was on 5/3/2012. In Ext.B9 the complainant was never a prompt payer of the monthly installments and also the total amount paid is Rs.2,36,350/-. As per the agreement the complainant is liable to pay Rs.3,10,494/- and also pay additional interest of 3% per month on defaulted amount. In Ext.B5 dated 7/2/11 the opposite party issued a cheque of Rs.18,200/- to Alpha Tyres for purchasing tyres. The complainant has no objection to marking of Ext.B5 document. Also in Ext.B9 the statement of account shows the amount of Rs.20,000/- dated 07/2/2011 credited as tyre advance.
Further the opposite party stated that they had paid the insurance amount will come to Rs.36,483/- and also availed a tyre loan for an amount of Rs.20,000/-. In Ext.B10 the case diary produced by the Town South Police Station shows that the complainant filed complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court Palakkad. The final report filed by the investigation officer shows that the case was false.
According to the opposite party the complainant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,26,556.72 towards the loan cum hypothecation agreement and he is claiming that he is entitled to get back the vehicle. As per Ext.A7 the vehicle used for transporting to pamolin from Mangalore to Palakkad. The opposite party stated that at the time of surrendering vehicle the complainant has kept the vehicle in a bad condition. No documentary evidence produced by the opposite party to prove that the vehicle kept in a bad condition.
The last date of payment was on 5/3/12 and the complainant has not paid the entire loan amount. The complainant has not produced evidence to prove that the entire loan amount paid by the complainant. As per Ext.A6 series the complainant has paid only Rs.2,33,250/. As per the agreement the opposite party is liable to take the vehicle in their custody on default of loan amount.
The clause 6(b) of the agreement “in the event of the borrower committing any of default as aforesaid then not withstanding anything contrary herein contained Shriram shall be entitled at its absolute discretion to interalia: Repossession of Asset”. We cannot attributed any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.
In the above discussions we are of the view that the complainant is miserably failed to prove his case. In the result complaint dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 23rd day of January 2013.
Sd/-
Seena H
President
Sd/-
Preetha G Nair
Member
Sd/-
Bhanumathi.A.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 – Copy of letter dated 7/9/09 issued by the opposite party to the
complainant
Ext.A2 – Copy of complaint dated 25/1/12 filed by the complainant before the
DYSP.
Ext.A3 – Copy of complaint filed in the JFCM Court against the oposite party by
the complainant
Ext.A4 – Telegram sent to the complainant by the opposite party dated 6/1/12
Ext.A5 – Copy of receipt issued by SI, Town South Police station in Crime
No.261/12
Ext.A6 series – Copy of receipt 19 nos. Issued by opposite party to the
complainant
Ext.A7 – Letter dated 26/11/12 issued by Inspecting Asst.Commissioner,
Manjeswaram Checkpost to the complainant
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party
Ext.B1 – Certified copy of power of attorney executed in favour of Haridasan
Ext.B2 – The original of loan cum hypothecation agreement executed by the
complainant in favour of the opposite party
Ext.B3 –The Photostat copy of the quotation
Ext.B4 –The original letter issued by the opposite party to the dealer
Ext.B5 –The Photostat copy of the cheque issued by the opposite party to the
dealer
Ext.B6 & B6(a) – Notice issued by the opposite party to the complainant and
guarantor along with postal receipts
Ext.B7 – Notice issued by the lawyer to the complainant alongwith the postal
receipts
Ext.B8 – The acknowledgement card duly signed by the complainant
Ext.B9 – The computer extract of the statement of account of the complainant.
Ext.B10 – Case diary of case NO.261/12 of Town South Police Station, Palakkad.
Witness examined on the side of the complainant
Nil
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party
DW1 – Haridas.M
Cost
No cost allowed.
