KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO.758/11
JUDGMENT DATED 31.5.2012
PRESENT
SHRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR -- MEMBER
SHRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR -- JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT.A.RADHA -- MEMBER
1. Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd;
Kollam Branch, Nazeema Complex,
Hospital Road, Kollam 691 001.
2. The Managing Director, -- APPELLANTS
Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd;
123, Angappa Naicken Street,
Chennai – 600 001.
(By Adv.Narayan R)
Vs.
Subhash Sivaprasad,
Thenguvilaputhen Veedu, -- RESPONDENT
Karimballoor, Puthenkulam P.O,
Kollam.
(By Adv.Sunil Narayanan)
JUDGMENT
SHRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR,MEMBER
The opposite parties in CC.185/07 in the file of CDRF, Kollam are the appellants herein who are aggrieved by the directions contained in the order dated 30..3.2010 wherein and whereby the Forum below has directed the opposite parties to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as costs to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of the order.
2. The complainant had approached the Forum stating hat he had availed financial assistance amounting to Rs.3,50,000/- from the first opposite party for purchasing a vehicle for the purpose of using it as a contract carriage and as per the agreement the same had to be repaid in 36 installments with interest. It was also submitted by him that he had paid Rs.75,650/- and in spite of remitting the same, the opposite party repossessed the vehicle in July 2005 and sold the vehicle. It was his further case that at the time of seizing the vehicle, the same had a value of Rs.3,50,000/- and the opposite parties were trying to collect those money from him even after repossession of the vehicle. The complainant had a still further case that 3 blank cheque leaves were obtained by the opposite parties as security for the repayment. It is alleged that the opposite parties committed deficiency in service in repossessing the vehicle and also selling it without the complainant’s knowledge and consent. In the complaint he prayed for directions to the opposite parties to pay him Rs.3.5 lakhs along with compensation and costs.
3. In the written version filed by the opposite parties it was admitted that the complainant had availed a loan of Rs.3,50,000/- and the same had to be repaid with interest in 36 monthly instalments. It was submitted that the complainant had repaid some amount and inspite of registered notice to the complainant the complainant did not pay the amount and had transferred the vehicle to some other person without the knowledge and consent of the opposite parties. It was further submitted that the complainant had suppressed material facts of the case and had approached the Forum with unclean hands.
4. The evidence consisted of the oral testimony of the complainant as PW1 and a witness as PW2. Exts.P1 to P8 were marked on the side of the complainant. On the side of the opposite parties Exts.B1 to B6 were marked. It is based on the said evidence that the Forum below passed the impugned order.
5. Heard both sides.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties vehemently argued before us that the complaint was not maintainable before the Forum as it was only a complaint for settlement of account and the Forum below had no jurisdiction to sit in Judgment over such issues. It is also submitted that the complaint was a gross defaulter and had approached the Forum without clean hands and suppressing material facts. The learned counsel has urged before us that the complainant had transferred the impugned vehicle without the permission of the opposite parties and that the Forum below had gone wrong in awarding compensation of Rs.50,000/- and cost of Rs.2000/- without any reason. Canvassing for the position that the order of the Forum is liable to be set aside the learned counsel argued for allowing the appeal with costs.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant supported the findings and conclusions of the Forum below. It is his very case that the opposite parties had forcefully taken possession of the vehicle even though the complainant had remitted/repaid an amount of Rs.75,650/-. It is also submitted that the vehicle was sold at a low price even though the vehicle would fetch Rs.3.5 lakhs at the time of auction. It is also his case that though the opposite parties would argue that the vehicle was sold by the complainant Ext.P8 would reveal that the vehicle was seized by the opposite parties with the help of Malampuzha Police and had sold the vehicle subsequently. It is his very case that the opposite parties had committed grave deficiency in service and hence the order of the Forum below to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- with costs of Rs.2,000/- is only to be upheld.
8. On hearing both sides and also on perusing the records, it is found that the complainant had availed a loan of Rs.3.5 lakhs from the opposite parties and the amount had to be repaid on or before 19.12.06. It is also the admitted fact that the complainant had remitted Rs.75650/- and it is fund that the vehicle was repossessed by the opposite parties as per Ext.P8. On a perusal of Ext.P8, it is seen that the vehicle was taken possession by the Malampuzha Police and the same was handed over to the opposite parties M/s.Sreeram Investment Ltd. It is strange to note that the opposite parties had taken a contention that the complainant had transferred the vehicle to somebody else without the permission from the opposite parties. In Ext.P7 also it is noted that the opposite parties had repossessed the subject vehicle and had demanded the complainant to pay the amount shown in that notice, failing which they had no other option but to sell the vehicle and had later sold the vehicle. Ext.D6 is the copy of complaint filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kollam for realization of the balance amount. The Forum below had found that since Ext.P7 was enough to show the intention of the opposite parties to sell the vehicle and also had taken steps for the realization of Rs.5,11,320/- from the complainant there was deficiency in service on the pat of the opposite parties and had fastened the liability of Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as costs.
9. We find that though the opposite parties had argued that the complainant had approached the Forum with unclean hands, the documents would show that the opposite parties had contested the matter with unclean hands. It is as good as the age old saying “one teases another for having elephantiasis in one leg where actually the teaser is having elephantiasis in both legs”. In the instant case the opposite parties were taking a stand that the complainant had approached the forum with unclean hands where in fact the opposite parties were those who had come before the Forum suppressing the fact that they had actually repossessed the vehicle and sold the same later as is evident from Exts.P7 and P8. However we find that the compensation ordered is on a higher side. The complainant was also at fault in remitting the balance amount in time and therefore it is our considered view that a sum of Rs.25,000/- would be just and proper to be paid as compensation by the opposite parties to the complainant to meet the ends of Justice.
10. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part with the above modification. Thereby, the opposite parties are liable to pay Rs25,000/- as compensation to the complainant with costs of Rs.2,000/- within two months from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount shall carry interest also at 9% per annum from the date of default till the date of payment. In the facts and circumstances of the present appeal, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.
Office will forward the LCR along with a copy of this order to the Forum below urgently.
S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR -- MEMBER
K.CHANDRADAS NADAR -- JUDICIAL MEMBER
A.RADHA -- MEMBER
