KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 607/2015
JUDGMENT DATED: 20.07.2023
(Against the Order in C.C. 170/2013 of CDRC, Kottayam)
PRESENT:
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
APPELLANT:
The Manager, SML Finance Ltd., Kannampuram Building, Near Pulimoodu Junction, Opp: CTO, M.C. Road, Kottayam.
(By Adv. R. Suja Madhav)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
Sunil K. Easo, S/o K.P. Easo, Anjalithoppil House, Karukachal P.O., Changanachery, Kottayam.
(By Adv. D.R. Rajesh)
JUDGMENT
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.: JUDICIAL MEMBER
This is an appeal filed by the opposite party in CC.No.170/2013 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kottayam (referred as District Commission as short). On 06.05.2015 the District Commission had allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to return the RC Book of the vehicle owned by the complainant and the Taxi permit or recreate the documents at his expenses, to pay compensation of Rs. 20,000/-, to pay Rs. 5,000/- as costs and to waive the penal interest and charges at the time of final settlement of the loan amount. Being aggrieved with the above order this appeal has been filed.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he had purchased a second hand Tata Indica Car bearing Reg. No. KL 5 Z 571 from one Vinod. The above vehicle had a hypothecation liability with Tata Finance. It was agreed between the complainant and Sri. Vinod that the complainant will avail loan from the opposite party and the outstanding loan will be closed by using the said sum. This proposal was accepted by the opposite party. On 19.01.2012 refinance loan was sanctioned by the opposite party numbered as HP No. 416 for a total 36 equal monthly instalments @ Rs. 5,019/- each. The loan was disbursed vide a cheque dated 24.01.2013 for a sum of Rs. 1,17,881/-. The opposite party had collected six cheque leaves from the joint account of the complainant and his wife as security. The opposite party had obtained a document as per the Right to Information Act to prove that all documents in respect of the vehicle have been kept with the Regional Transport Office, Changanasseri for noting the change of hypothecation. Thereafter the complainant started repayment of the loan. The opposite party assured that the documents will be returned within 30 days after effecting changes in the RC, but the said documents were not returned. The complainant had requested the opposite party to return the permit, Insurance Certificate etc. for effecting the payment of taxes and insurance premium. For conducting the fitness test of the vehicle those documents are needed. In the month of September 2012 the permit in the name of the previous owner got expired and the insurance policy also got expired. So the complainant could not operate the vehicle and the same was kept idle. The act of the opposite party in retaining the documents amount to unfair trade practice. The complainant had approached the opposite party for the closure of the loan. But the opposite party has refused to comply with the request of the complainant. Hence the complaint.
3. The opposite party filed a version with the following pleadings:-
The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. It is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. The opposite party is a non banking financing Company under the Reserve Bank of India. The manager is not competent to represent the company. There is no duty for the opposite party to take steps in respect of the documents of the vehicle. It is the duty of the loanee to do the requirements for the transfer of the documents in respect of the vehicle. From the month of November 2012 onwards the complainant stopped repayment of the loan and on further enquiry the opposite party could gather information that the complainant never made any steps to note hypothecation in the R C of the vehicle. It was also understood that the loan in favour of the previous owner was closed and the necessary records transmitted to the Joint RTO Changanassery with necessary clearance certificate. But the complainant never initiated any steps with the Joint RTO Office Changanassery in this regard. The said fact was known to the complainant but the complainant had suppressed those facts and filed the complaint stating that the documents are retained by the opposite party. On 27.04.2013 and 12.06.2013 the opposite party had issued notices requesting the complainant to remit the loan amount. There is no unfair trade practice or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and they sought for dismissal of the complaint.
4. On the side of the complainant Exts. A1 to A8 were marked. The opposite party examined DW1 and marked Exts. B1 to B5 & B6 series.
5. In the appeal memorandum the appellant contended that the District Commission ought to have concluded that there was no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the appellant. The District Commission went wrong in placing reliance upon Exts. A3& A4 issued by the complainant. The District Commission had violated the principles of natural justice.
6. Heard the counsel for the appellant and the respondent. Perused the records received from the District Commission. Admittedly the complainant had availed a hypothecation facility from the opposite party for the payment of consideration to the earlier owner by utilizing the loan availed from the appellant. It is also seen from the records that the complainant had stopped remitting the monthly instalments from the month of November 2012 onwards which is evident from Exts. A7 & A8. Ext B4 is a letter of information supplied by the Public Information Officer, Regional Transport Office, Kottayam in answer to the details sought for by the opposite party by resorting to the provisions of the Right to Information Act which shows that the documents submitted for getting the clearance certificate of the Vehicle bearing Reg. No. KL.05-Z-571 were transmitted to the Sub Regional Transport Office, Chnganasseri on 29.10.2012 by speed post after completing the necessary steps. This complaint was filed on 12.07.2013. So it is proved that the RC and the necessary documents are kept in the custody of the Sub Regional Transport Office, Changanasseri for necessary action. If that be so, it is up to the complainant to approach the concerned Sub Regional Office, Changanasseri to take steps to get the hypothecation with the opposite party endorsed in the RC book. Without resorting to such a step the complainant had rushed to the District Commission with this complaint. There is also evidence on the side of the complainant as Ext. A8 regarding the legal action proposed by the opposite party for realization of the loan amount. There are no bonafides in the facts stated in the complaint. It is obvious that the complainant had approached the District Commission with unclean hands. There is merit in the argument advanced by the appellant that the instant complaint was filed to cause obstruction to the appellant from initiating legal action for the recovery of the loan amount disbursed to the complainant. The District Commission had failed to gather the real state of affairs and to reach a correct conclusion. The order passed by the District Commission is liable to be reversed. Hence we set aside the order of the District Commission.
In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of the District Commission is set aside. The complaint shall stand dismissed. Parties shall bear their respective costs.
The appellant is allowed to get back Rs.12,500/- being the deposit made at the time of filing the appeal, on proper acknowledgement.
AJITH KUMARD.: JUDICIAL MEMBER
BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
jb
