By. Smt. Bindu. R, President:

            This complaint is filed by Rijeesh, S/o. Narayanakurup, Rijeesh Mandiram, Karimkutty, Karimkutty Post, Kottathara Village, Wayanad against Starlaa (NBFC) Finance and Hire Purchase (P) Limited, Represented by its Manager, Reg. Office, 4/287-B, Sujana Complex, Sulthan Bathery, Sulthan Bathery Post, Wayanad as Opposite Party alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side of the Opposite Party.

            2.  The allegations in the complaint are that the Complainant is an agriculturist and since the father of the Complainant is a chronic kidney patient who is undergoing dialysis thrice in a week, the Complainant purchased a second hand OMNI Van bearing Registration No.KL-35-E-2528 by arranging loan from the Opposite Party.  The repayment of the loan was scheduled from 20.04.2020 to 20.09.2022 comprising 30 instalments of Rs.5,640/- each. According to the Complainant after paying 5^th instalment, the Complainant could not pay some instalments due to covid pandemic.  The crop of ginger was also perished and the Complainant could not pay the instalments as per the chart and the Complainant informed the Opposite Party regarding his intention to clear the loan in time.  According to the Complainant, now when the Complainant contacted the Opposite Party, to pay some instalments, the Opposite Party is not ready to accept the amount and to give the loan account statement and not ready to grant the moratorium facility.  The email sent to the Opposite Party for getting account statement was also not replied.  According to the Complainant non-acceptance of the amount the act of not issuing the statement and denial of moratorium facility amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side of the Opposite Party.  Even though the Complainant requested to regularize and reschedule the loan, the Opposite Party is insisting to pay the entire chart amount which will be ended only in September 2022.  Moreover, the Opposite Party is threatening the Complainant that they will take away the vehicle for which the Opposite Party had no authority to do so.  According to the Complainant the Opposite Party has no authority to re-possess the vehicle without the order of the Court.  The Opposite Party has no authority to seize the vehicle when the Complainant is ready to pay the dues by regularizing the loan and hence the Complainant praying for a direction to the Opposite Party to receive the dues or to permit the Complainant to deposit instalments in Court and for other reliefs.

            3.  Upon notice Opposite Party entered into appearance and filed their version contenting interalia admitting the loan facility for Rs.1,20,000/- taken by the Complainant.  According to the Opposite Party after availing the loan, the Complainant defaulted repayment and as per the statement dated 31.01.2022 an amount of Rs.1,84,121/- was due and the Complainant settled the loan accounts for Rs.1,60,000/- after settling the disputes.  The Complainant is a chronic defaulter and had not made any attempt to settle the dues or close the loan account even after repeated requests and demands and giving the loan details to the Complainant.  The allegation of non-acceptance of instalments, non-issuance of loan account, denial of moratorium facility, threatening the Complainant etc are denied by the Opposite Party.  The Opposite Party stated that they have no authority to repossess the vehicle without the order of the Court and they are Non-Banking Financial Company acting as per the Rules and Regulations of RBI.  According to them there is no deficiency of service and the complaint is filed by unclean hands and prays to dismiss the complaint with costs.

            4.  Evidence in this case consists of oral evidence of PW1 and Ext.A1 to A4 (A4 with objection) from the side of the Complainant and oral evidence of OPW1 and Ext.B1 to B6 (B5 with objection) marked from the side of the Opposite Party that they had furnished account statement the same is not seen filed.  Whereas, Ext.B6 consist of payment schedule.  Thereafter the case referred to mediation but he same was also not fruitful due to the non-co-operation of the Complainant.  Thereafter the Complainant’s Counsel submitted “no instruction” and Complainant was also not present even though notice from the Commission is received by him.

            5.  The following are the questions to be analysed in this case to derive into an inference of the acts.

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the side of the Opposite Party…?
2. If proved, Compensation and costs for which the Complainant is entitled for..?

6.   The case of the Complainant is that he had purchased the vehicle for taking his father to the hospital and loan was sanctioned by the Opposite Party by fixing the repayment in 30 instalments @ Rs.5,640/- each for the period from 20.04.2020 to 20.09.2022.  But unfortunately covid pandemic started and the payment of instalments were interrupted and the Complainant informed the Opposite Party that the entire loan amount will be repaid in time.  Thereafter when the Complainant approached the Opposite Party to pay the defaulted instalments they have not permitted the Complainant to repay the loan saying that moratorium also will not be given to the Complainant.  They are not even prepared to provide the loan statement.  These acts of the Opposite Party amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from their side.

7.  During cross-examination of the Complainant, he deposed that “Fs¶ ho«n Account sâ copy  bpambn h¶v `ojWns¸Sp¯nbn«nÃ.  tem¬ kw_Ôn¨v XÀ¡anà ]enibn XÀ¡ap­v”.  Further PW1 Deposed that “loan DD Btbm, sN¡mtbm, transfer Btbm ASbv¡mw.  FXnÀI£nbpambn CS]mSv H¯v XoÀ¸m¡nbn«nÃ.  Ah[n sN¡v sImSp¯n«nÃ.  loan FSp¯t¸mÄ blank cheque  AhÀ hm§nbncp¶p.  ]cmXn sImSp¡pt¼mÄ CXv ]cmXnbn ]dbmXncp¶Xv  CS]mSv BbXn\memWv.  Hcp amkw Ignªm KUp¡fmbn loan ASbv¡m³ Rm³ X¿mdmWv”.

8.  During cross of OPW1 he deposed that “h­n¡v HP Loan FSp¡pt¼mÄ Aadhaar, Pan, Agreement set F¶nh hm§mdp­v. Agreement set F¶p ]dªm hml\¯nsâbpw c­p I£nIfpsSbpw  details AS§p¶XmWv. B1 document  h­nbpsS hnhc§Ä H¶panÃ.  km[mcW D­mImdp­v.  Agreement  ]e tImf§fpw blank BWv. Agreement 200 cq]bpsS ap{Z]{X¯nemWv D­mth­Xv CXn CÃ.  CXv Hcp legal transaction Aà F¶p ]dªm icnbÔ.

9. In this case, admittedly Complainant availed a loan from the Opposite Party and the instalments defaulted some or other reason after the 5^th instalments.  There is no evidence produced from the side of the Complainant regarding the deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the side of the Opposite Party.  Apart from Ext.A1 to A4 no other documents are produced by the Complainant to prove his case.  There is no evidence regarding the date on which the Complainant approached the Opposite Party as alleged in the complaint for getting details.

10.  On the other hand the documents produced by the Opposite Party shows the agreements between the Complainant and Opposite Party which bears the signature of the Complainant and the Complainant has no case that these documents are not signed by him.  Moreover, as submitted by the Complainant in the box he can very well settle the matter with Opposite Party when the matter is placed for mediation which has also not been done by him.

11.  Hence the Commission finds that there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the side of the Opposite Party and Point No.1 is found against the Complainant.

12.  Since the Point No.1 is found against the Complainant, the Commission did not considered Point No.2 in the case.

Hence Consumer Case is dismissed without costs.  Interim Orders issued in I.A.63/2022 in this Consumer Case is hereby vacated.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 4^th day of November 2024.

Date of Filing:- 17.02.2022.

PRESIDENT   : Sd/-

MEMBER       : Sd/-

APPENDIX.

Witness for the Complainant:-

PW1.              Rijeesh. E. N.                                    Farmer.

Witness for the Opposite Party:-

OPW1.          Shibi. P. Varghese.                         Assistant Recovery Manager.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1.                  Pass Book.

A2.                  Copy of Registration Certificate.

A3.                  Copy of Dialysis Hand Book and Diet Manual for Renal Patients.

A4.                  Copy of Email Communication.

Exhibits for the Opposite Party:-

B1.                  Authorization.                                                         Dt:10.07.2022.

B2.                  Loan/Finance/Hire-Purchase Agreement.      Dt:20.03.2020.

B3.                  Pro Note.                                                                  Dt:20.03.2020.

B4.                  Cash Receipt.                                                           Dt:20.03.2020.

B5(series).    Copy of Lawyer Notices(2 Nos).           

B6.                  Hire Purchase Agreement.                                  Dt:20.03.2020.      

PRESIDENT   :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

/True Copy/

Sd/-

                                                                                             ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

                                                                                                  CDRC, WAYANAD.

Kv/-