Kerala

Idukki

CC/149/2020

Shinto Mathew - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sriram transport finance and co - Opp.Party(s)

Adv:lissy mm

27 Jan 2023

ORDER

DATE OF FILING : 05/11/2020

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI

Dated this the 27^th day of January 2023

Present :A

              SRI.C.SURESHKUMAR                                               PRESIDENT

              SMT.ASAMOL P.                                                          MEMBER

              SRI.AMPADY K.S.                                                        MEMBER

CC NO.149/2020

Between

Complainant                              : Shinto Mathew,

                                                     Podipara House,

                                                     Upputhara P.O., Kakkathodu,

                                                     Near Forest Station Peermade,

                                                      Idukki District

                                                       (By Adv.Lissy M.M.)

                                                              And

Opposite Party                        :1 . Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd.,

                                                      101-105, 1^st Floor, B-Wing,

                                                      Shiv Chambers, Sector – 11, C.B.D.,

                                                      Belapur, Navi Mumbai – 400 614,

                                                      Represented by its Managing Director

                                                 2 . Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd.,          

                                                      Kattappana P.O., Kattappana,

                                                      Represented by its Manager.

                                                       (Both by Adv.Gem Korason)

O R D E R

SMT.ASAMOL P., MEMBER

 

Complainant’s case is briefly discussed hereunder:-

 

1 . Complainant is the registered owner of the vehicle No.KL-34-A-3824 Force Traveller.  He has purchased the vehicle with the financial assistance of opposite parties.  He availed a loan of Rs.3,00,000/- on 03/10/2017 and again another loan for insurance of Rs.37,269/- on 09/05/2018.   The tenure of the first loan was 36 months and the tenure of the 2^nd loan was 12 months.  The EMI was Rs.11,613/-.

(Cont.....2)

-2-

2 . Complainant had been remitting loan amount without fail.  However in December 2018, the vehicle met with an accident at Ponkunnam.  The vehicle was entrusted to one workshop at Thrissur and the workshop owner has swindled the money entrusted with the workshop manager for repair of the vehicle and the vehicle was not repaired by the workshop manager.  Meanwhile the flood came and the flood caused further delay.  Hence the complainant could not remit the loan for some months.  On 09/03/2017, the insurance company settled the claim for Rs.97,000/-.  On that day only Rs.64,720/- was in arrears and Rs.17,142/- was excess in the loan account.  In spite of repeated demands, the opposite parties did not pay the money.

3 . Since the workshop manager did not repair the vehicle in time, complainant could not re-pay the loan thereafter.

4 . After that the Covid lockdown come and the remaining instalments were in default.  As on 09/03/2019, the outstanding amount was  Rs.1,81,103/-in the loan account.

5 .   Opposite parties have charged interest, penal interest and other charges for the loan.  Also they have been threatening the complainant that unless he pays the loan amount alongwith interest and penal interest, they would re-possess the vehicle, if the vehicle is thus re-possession, the only means of lively hood of complainant would be lost.

6 . The charging of exorbitant interest for the defaulted loan instalment is gross deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.  Hence he prayed the following reliefs.

 (a ) .  Opposite parties may be directed to settle the loan account  with charging 12% interest for the defaulted installments.

 

(Cont.....3)

-3-

(b ) . Also opposite parties may be directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation.

Upon notice from the commission, opposite parties have entered appearance and filed detailed written version against the complaint.  Their contentions are discussed hereunder.

1 . The opposite parties deny all the averments except those that are specifically  admitted hereunder.  The complaint filed in the above case is not maintainable either in law facts  or circumstances of the case.  The complainant is using the vehicle for commercial purpose and there is no consumer relationship and the complaint is hence not maintainable  before the Forum.  That as per the terms of the agreement if any dispute arose the same has to be referred to the Arbitrator and as per section 8 of the  Arbitration and Conciliation Act any  Forum or court receiving petition should refer the matter to the Arbitrator if there is any Arbitration clause in the agreement.  Hence the matter in issue has to be referred to the Arbitrator.

2 . Opposite party is engaged in the business of vehicle finance.  The contention as to the ownership of the vehicle must be proved by the complainant.  It is true that the complainant availed loan for his vehicle No.KL 34 A 3824 but the details of loan and remittance stated by the complainant are false and hence denied.

3 . On 03/10/2017 loan was advanced to the complainant and as per the agreement an amount of Rs.4,18,491/- have to be repaid by the complainant by total 36 installments.  Out of the 4,18,491/- an amount of Rs.300000/- is the loan advanced and an amount of Rs.1,18,491/- is the interest.  As per the terms of agreement  complainant agreed to pay an amount of Rs.4,18,491/- by 36 installments within the stipulated time.  The contention contrary to the same is false  and hence denied.   Complainant  did  not  turn  up  to  remit

(Cont.....4)

-4-

installment. The complainant had also made default in repaying the said amount within loan period.  The contention contrary to the same is false and hence denied.  The complainant further availed WCL on 09/05/2018 and an amount of Rs.37,269/- was sanctioned and the interest for the same is Rs.4,927/-.  The complainant promised prompt payment of said WCL by 12 installments.  The complainant further availed WCL  on 10/05/2019 and an amount of Rs.37,707/- was sanctioned and the interest for the same is Rs.4,969/-.  The complainant promised the prompt payment of said WCL  by 12 installments.  The complainant hence liable to pay the WCL loan availed by him with interest to the opposite parties.  The amount availed by the complainant as WCL is also accounted in the statement of account and the receipt amounts shown in the statement of account includes the WCL sanctioned.

4 . Contention that the vehicle met with an accident and the further story as to the repair and dispute is false and hence denied.  The complainant must put to strict proof to prove the same.  The contention that the insurance company settled the amount for Rs.97,000/- and on that only Rs.64,720/- was arrears and Rs.17142/- was excess in the loan account and in spite of repeated demands the opposite parties did not pay the amount is false and hence denied.

5 . The contentions and stories narrated for nonpayment of loan amount is false and hence denied.  The complainant and guarantors had executed the agreement duly and it is duly signed by the complainant  and guarantors.  The above complainant is filed with the ill intention to drag the remittance of loan.  The contention put forward by the complainant is not correct the opposite party is claiming the amount only which they are legally entitled.  The contention as to the illegal demand of the opposite party is also false and hence denied.

(Cont.....5)

-5-

6 . The contentions that the complainant has got right to pay the loan as per the prevailing loan are false and hence denied.  The complainant is bound to make payment as per the terms of the agreement.  The contention that the amount demanded by the opposite parties is not having any locus standi is false and hence denied.  The above said allegations are for escaping from his liability.

7 . The contention as to the penal interest and default charges is false and hence denied.  The opposite party had  claimed only what they are legally entitled.  The complainant is not entitled to keep away from paying the due amount by above said lame excuses.  The complainant is a gross defaulter and the complainant did not make  any payment as stipulated and as per the terms of the agreement.  The payment was made after the stipulated date.  Since the payment of installment was not made within the stipulated time the opposite parties are entitled to claim overdue charges as per the terms of the agreement and the complainant is liable to pay the same.

8 . The contention in paragraph 5 of the complaint is false and hence denied.  The contention that the opposite party demanded huge interest and penal interest is absolutely false and hence denied.  There is nothing happened as alleged the said allegation is only for the sake of the complaint.

9 . The interest rate was specifically stated in the loan agreement and the installment was scheduled accordingly. The complainant had affixed his signature after knowing all these terms and conditions and the contention contrary to the same is made only for the sake of the complaint.  The further contention that the opposite party insisted for availing fresh loan is false and hence denied.  The complainant is liable to pay the overdue charges for the delayed payment and the opposite party is entitled for the same as per the terms of the agreement.  The contention that the complainant sustained loss

(Cont.....6)

-6-

and the opposite party is liable to compensate the same is false and hence denied.  The contention as to the unfair trade practice is only for the sake of complaint.  The opposite parties are sustaining loss due to the act of the complainant.  The further contention as to the loss sustained to the complainant and deficiency of service is false and hence denied.

10 . The complainant did not remit the amount as per the terms of the agreement and the complainant in order to escape from the liability had approached the Forum by suppressing the real factual scenario and by suppressing the material facts.  There is no loss for the complainant while the opposite party is sustaining heavy loss due to the nonpayment of loan amount.  There is no cause of action against the opposite party.  None of the relief sought for by the complainant is allowable.  The complainant is not entitled to get any relief from this Hon’ble Forum.  Hence, complaint  may be dismissed with allowing compensatory cost of  opposite parties.

Thereafter, the case was posted for complainant’s evidence.  Complainant has produced 3 documents and these were marked as Exts.P1 to P3.  No oral evidence adduced by complainant.  Also, opposite parties have not produced any documents and no oral evidence adduced.  Now the points which arise for consideration is :-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
2. If there is any deficiency, what are the reliefs to which complainant is entitled?

Points are considered together

We have gone through the complaint and documents.  No proof affidavit is filed by both parties.  Complainant states that exorbitant interest was   charging   on   the   loan   account   and   this   is   gross   deficiency  in

(Cont.....7)

 

-7-

 

service on the part of opposite parties.  But, on the perusal of Ext.P3, ie, statement of account issued from opposite party, we have found that complainant has to re-paying totally Rs.4,60,687/- along with interest in his loan account.  As per this Ext.P3 document, it is seen that since the starting date of EMI ie, on 05/11/2017 to till the period on 19/03/2019, complainant had paid Rs.2,56,790.00 including the amount settled by insurance company.  Out of the said amount, Rs.17,142.61/- was excess in the loan account.  But, opposite parties have deducted the amount of Rs.17,142.61/- and thereafter Rs.1,81,103/- is seeing as existing outstanding amount in this loan account.  On the basis of the detailed perusal of Ext.P3 document, we find that, when existing outstanding amount  added in the amount which he had paid totally it will be Rs.4,37,893/- and it is not more than repaying amount.  This is the amount demanded by opposite party as per Ext.P3.  At the time of filing of this complaint, it is not seen as per Ext.P3 or any other document that opposite party  has either demanded  or charged exorbitant interest in the alleged loan account.  Hence we are of the view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.  However, complainant has produced Ext.P2 ie, lawyer notice issued to complainant on 13/10/2021.  As per this notice, it is seen that a sum of Rs.4,88,075/- is due as on 13/10/2021 was mentioned.  After filing the complaint, complainant received this notice.  But, there is no evidence adduced either documentary or oral with regard to the Ext.P2 document to prove that the due amount which is shown in this notice is the exorbitant amount.  Therefore, exorbitant interest was charged in the

 

 

(Cont.....8)

-8-

loan account of the complainant was not proved.  Hence, complaint is dismissed without cost.

Extra copies to be taken back by parties without delay.

 

 Pronounced by this Commission on this the 27^th  day of January, 2023.

                                                                                                                                                                             

                                                                                                  Sd/-

                                                                               SMT.ASAMOL P., MEMBER  

                                                                                         Sd/-                          

                                                                        SRI.C.SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

                                                                                                  Sd/-                                                                                  

                                                                               SRI.AMPADY K.S., MEMBER                                                                                                                                                                           

 

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

Nil

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 – Copy of Certificate of Registration

Ext.P2 – Lawyer notice dated 13/10/2021

Ext.P3 –Statement of Account for the period ending 19/03/2019

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil

 

                                                                                               Forwarded by Order

 

 

                                                                                          ASSISTANT REGISTRAR