Kerala

Trissur

CC/06/48

Babu.T.L - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tata Finance Ltd. Ambika Arcade Thrissur - Opp.Party(s)

Stephy John and Sunil John

30 Jan 2010

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
AYYANTHOLE
THRISSUR-3
 
Complaint Case No. CC/06/48
 
1. Babu.T.L
Rose cottage, Nadathara
 
BEFORE: 
 HONORABLE Padmini Sudheesh PRESIDENT
  Rajani P.S. Member
  Sasidharan M.S Member
 
PRESENT:Stephy John and Sunil John, Advocate for the Complainant 1
 V.R.Jyothish, Advocate for the Opp. Party 1
ORDER

 

By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President
            The complainant purchased a two wheeler named Kinetic Nova DLX bearing registration No.KL8-X 3185 and the finance was arranged as per the finance agreement entered between the complainant and the first respondent. At the time of purchase of the vehicle the first respondent had a branch office at Thrissur which was taken over by the second respondent later. As per the agreement the complainant paid first intalment as cash for Rs.1,733/- and balance 23 post dated cheques issued from the complainant’s firm account maintained at SBT. The cheques issued are of series of cheque numbers from 391801 to 391823 in total 23 cheques were handed over to the first respondent. At the time of issuance of loan there was a security deposit   receipt scheme. As per the scheme the complainant had deposited Rs.9,600/- on 20/5/2003. A deposit receipt was issued to the same. In the receipt the hire purchase agreement is also noted. As per the receipt the date of maturity was 19/5/05 and the maturity value is Rs.11,136.28. The respondents presented the cheques given by the complainant and all the cheques were honoured. On 18th October 2005 the respondent intimated the complainant that they have received full hire purchase dues and issued notice of termination of contract. Immediately after the date of maturity the complainant demanded the maturity amount of the security deposit scheme. But the respondent denied the claim made by the complainant. So the complainant was caused to send a notice to the respondent and both respondents received the notice but no reply is sent. The maturity amount have not handed over to the complainant till the date. Hence the complaint.
 
            2. The respondents are called absent and set exparte. 
 
            3. In order to prove the case the complainant filed affidavit and Exhibits P1 to P6.
 
            4. According to the complainant he had paid the entire loan amount and the respondents issued a letter of termination of contract. So according to him he is entitled to the security deposit which was deposited by him at the time of issuance of loan. He has produced security deposit and it is marked as Exhibit P1. It would show that the amount of deposit as Rs.9,600/- and the maturity value as Rs.11,136.28. Thus the complainant has to get back this amount with interest. There is no counter evidence to the evidence of complainant.
 
            5. In the result the complaint is allowed and the respondents are directed to return Rs.11,136.28 (Rupees Eleven thousand one hundred thirty six and paise twenty eight only) with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from 19//5/05 till realization with cost Rs.500/- to the complainant within a month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
 

             Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 31st day of January 2010.

 
 
[HONORABLE Padmini Sudheesh]
PRESIDENT
 
[ Rajani P.S.]
Member
 
[ Sasidharan M.S]
Member

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.