BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PRESENT
SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER
C.C. No. 15/2009 Filed on 14.01.2009
Dated : 30.04.2011
Complainant:
Aleyamma John residing at 7-D/20, Chandralok Co. Op. Hsg. Soc. Limited, Sector-10, Koparkhairane, Navi Mumbai-400 709 represented by her Power of Attorney Holder Mamachan, alias Abraham Mathai, residing at Block No. 32, ESM Colony Kulathupuzha, Kollam District.
(By adv. Abdul Kharim)
Opposite party:
M/s Tata Motors Ltd., represented by its Manager Sri Ram, Lakshmi Building, Bakery Junction, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By adv. Vidya V.V)
This O.P having been heard on 16.03.2011, the Forum on 30.04.2011 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER
This complaint has been filed by the Power of Attorney Holder of the complainant for and on behalf of the complainant. The complainant had availed a loan from the opposite party to the tune of Rs. 3,74,000/- for purchasing a Tata Sumo car bearing Reg. No. KL-02 Y 1386 worth Rs. 5,74,000/- from Koyenko, Kollam on 27.03.2006. At the time of entering into the loan agreement, the opposite party had promised to hand over the agreement detailing the terms and conditions of repayment of the loan amount to the complainant, which they have not done till date and that the complainant is still not aware of the interest rate and amount payable towards the monthly installment. At the time of agreement the opposite party had procured 15 signed blank cheques drawn from Central Bank of India, Kulathupuzha from the complainant. The complainant submits that towards the repayment of the loan amount the opposite party had encashed 12 cheques for an amount of Rs. 10,850/- each among the above mentioned 15 cheques and for the balance amount of Rs. 3,18,850/- the complainant has given ready cash on 27.02.2007. On the same day the opposite party has represented that among the 12 cheques which have been encashed by them, one cheque bearing No. 215902 dated 26.03.2007 drawn is mistakenly presented in their bank for encashment of an amount of Rs. 10,850/- in excess to the actual amount due to them and for the same they promised to repay the amount within two days along with the 3 unused signed blank cheques and the Non-liability Certificate to lift the hypothecation in the R.C Book. But in spite of lapse of one year and eleven months after having remitted the entire amount by the complainant due to the opposite party in connection with the loan amount tendered by them neither repaid the aforesaid excess amount collected from the complainant nor they have handed over the unused 3 cheques and the N.O.C to lift the hypothecation. Hence this complaint.
Opposite party filed version contending the entire allegations levelled against them. They submitted that immediately after the execution of the agreement, a copy of the agreement containing all the terms and conditions pertaining to the loan was handed over to the complainant. They denied that there has been any excess withdrawal of any amount as alleged. It is correct that the cheque bearing No. 215902 was presented and the amount was withdrawn and adjusted towards the loan amount of the complainant only. Hence there is no question of refunding the said amount as alleged. They further submitted that the complainant is not entitled to get any non-liability certificate as an amount of Rs. 24.35 is due from the complainant towards the overdue charges apart from the future installments. The opposite party states that they have not taken any blank cheque from the complainant as alleged. They further submitted that before the termination of the loan account the complainant is not entitled to get the cheque if any back. Opposite party submitted that the complainant is not entitled to get any no-objection certificate or the unused cheques as an amount of Rs. 24.35 is due from the complainant towards the overdue charges apart from future installments. Hence they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
In this case complainant's Power of Attorney Holder has filed proof affidavit and he has produced 3 documents. Opposite party not adduced any evidence.
Points to be ascertained :
Whether there is deficiency in service from the side of opposite party?
Whether the complainant is entitled to get any reliefs?
Points (i) & (ii):- The case of the complainant is that she has remitted the entire loan amount to the opposite party on 27.02.2007. But the opposite party did not return the blank cheque which were obtained by the opposite party from the complainant at the time of issuing loan and did not issue N.O.C to the complainant in spite of remitting the entire loan amount. And the complainant has alleged that after closing the entire loan amount the opposite party had presented his cheque and withdrawn Rs. 10,850/- from his bank account on 26.03.2007. To prove his contentions the complainant has filed proof affidavit and examined him as PW1. The opposite party did not turn up to cross examine him. Hence the affidavit filed by the complainant stands unchallenged. Complainant has produced 3 documents which were marked as Exts. P1 to P3. Ext. P1 is the photocopy of details of bank account of the complainant. From this document we can see that on 02.03.2007 the opposite party had withdrawn Rs. 10,850/- from the account of the complainant by cheque No. 215901. Ext. P2 is the payment receipt issued by the opposite party to the complainant on 27.02.2007 for an amount of Rs. 3,18,880/-. Complainant states that as per Ext. P2 document she had remitted the balance amount and closed the entire loan transaction. But as per Ext. P1 it is seen that on 02.03.2007 the opposite party had withdrawn Rs. 10,850/- from the account of the complainant. Ext. P3 is the copy of lawyer's notice and its postal records issued by the complainant to the opposite party dated 10.09.2008. Through this notice the complainant demanded repayment of an excess amount of Rs. 10,850/- collected by the opposite party from the complainant's account and the NOC. Though opposite party accepted notice, they never turned up to settle the matter. The contention of the opposite party is that the complainant is not entitled to get any unused cheque or no-objection certificate as an amount of Rs. 24.35 is due from the complainant towards the overdue charges apart from the future installments. The opposite party has not demanded any amount from the complainant till the date of filing this complaint. The opposite party sent a lawyer's notice to the complainant on 11.01.2010 demanding Rs. 35,372.75 as balance dues. The complainant produced the notice along with the proof affidavit. But the opposite party has not produced any evidence for that. If the opposite party is entitled to get any amount from the complainant, they will never wait for this much of long period for demanding that amount. From the evidences adduced by the complainant we find that the complainant is entitled to get the excess amount collected by the opposite party from the complainant's account i.e Rs. 10,850/- and the complainant is entitled to get the NOC for the vehicle bearing Reg. No. KL-02 Y 1386. Hence the complaint is allowed.
In the result, the complaint is allowed. Opposite party is directed to refund Rs. 10,850/- with 12% annual interest from 26.03.2007 till the date of realization. Opposite party is directed to issue No Objection Certificate to lift the hypothecation of the vehicle bearing Reg. No. KL-02 Y 1386 and the opposite party shall pay Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant as compensation and costs. This Forum direct the opposite party that they have no right to demand any amount from the complainant or present any cheque of the complainant to the bank regarding the transaction in dispute. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of the order.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 30th day of April 2011.
Sd/- BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
Sd/-
G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
Sd/-
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
jb
C.C. No. 15/2009
APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :
PW1 - Abraham. M
II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :
P1 - Photocopy of details of bank account of the complainant
P2 - Payment receipt issued by the opposite party to complainant
for Rs. 3,18,880/- dated 27.02.2007.
P3 - Copy of lawyer's notice and its postal records issued by
complainant to opposite party dated 10.09.2008
III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :
NIL
IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :
NIL
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
