D.o.F:11/11/16

D.o.O:30/5/2017

                      IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUMIDDUKKI

                                                                CC.NO.240/16

                                               Dated this, the 30 st day of May 2017

PRESENT:

SRI.S.GOPAKUMAR : PRESIDENT

SRI.BENNY.K.            : MEMBER

Saji Gopalan, Kalachira House,

Nariyanpara Po, Kanchiyar, Idukki dt.685511.        : Complainant

(Adv.Vikraman Nair.N.G)

1. TATA Motors Finance Ltd, Ist Floor,

Parayil Building, Girideepam School Road,

KK Road, Kottayam, Dt.686010

     2        Tata Motors Finance  Ltd, Regd. Office 10^th Floor,      :  Opposite parties

               106A&B, Maker Chambers III, Narimanpoint

                Mumbai-400021.3.

3      Tata Motors Finance Ltd, Kottayil Building, Ground Floor,

       Velloorkunnam Market Po, Kerala  Muvattupuzha

        686673, represented  by its Managers.

( Adv. Shiji Joseph)                       

                                                                                        ORDER

SRI.BENNY.K.            : MEMBER

        The complainant had availed a loan for Rs.1,20,000/- from the 3^rd opposite party vide agreement No.5000884056 dtd 28/1/2012.  The complainant was agreed to repay the loan  in 60  monthly instalments of Rs.3070/- each.  While availing the loan  3 signed blank cheque leaves if SBI Kattappana branch bearing No.047177 series  which was  entrusted  to the 3^rd  opposite party.  The agent  of the  opposite party came to the  complainants residence  at  Kanchiyar and the  loan agreement was signed  at the  house of the complainant.  The  complainant  was remitting the monthly instalments regularly but each time, the opposite party was collecting  huge amount from the complainant over and above the instalment amount.  In the 1^st week of  Nov.2015 , the agent of the opposite party informed the  complainant that the  finance company had offered one time settlement scheme (OTS) for the loan if the complainant ready to pay  an amount of Rs.40,000/- in the loan as full and final settlement.  For confirming  the offer opposite party had issued a letter to the  complainant, they assured that they will issue NOC with 15 days and all other legal proceedings against the complainant shall be withdrawn, but till , not complied with their promises.  After paying  Rs.40,000/- the agent demanded  more money for issuing  NOC.  The complainant denied his demand. As a consequence  the opposite party had issued legal notice and filed a complaint before JFMC Aluva  and they also send an arbitration  letter dtd.15/7/2016.  After receiving the entire amount, the act of  opposite parties is  unfare trade practice and with holding security cheques.

     In the written version  filed by the 3^rd opposite party  had admitted that  the complainant  entered into a loan agreement vide No.5000884056 dtd 28/11/2012 to purchase a Nano car for Rs.1,20,000/-.  The complainant agreed to repay the same with  the finance , cheque Rs.49200/-  in 60 monthly instalments of Rs.3070/-.  Out of the total amount the  complainant paid only Rs.1,32,613/- till 6/9/16 and an amount of Rs.38,467/- was in a arrear till 6/9/16.  All the instalments paid by the complainant were properly accounted  as per the terms and conditions of the agreement.  3^rd opposite party has not  given any offer to issue NOC on payment of Rs. 40,000/-.  The opposite party had initiated legal proceedings for the recovery of the loan amount.  The complainant is liable to pay  penal interest and other charges  as agreed by the complainant.

3.    The point for consideration is whether there  is  any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and if so  for what  relief  the complainant is entitled to ?

4.   The evidence consist  of oral testimony of PW1 and  Exts.P1 to  P3 marked on  the side of the  complainant. On the side of opposite parties Ext.R1 marked.

5.  The Point: Complainant was examined as PW1.  He had availed a loan for Rs.1,20,000/- from the 3^rd opposite party vide agreement No.5000884056 dtd 28/1/2012.  The complainant was agreed to repay the loan  in 60  monthly instalments of Rs.3070/- each.  While availing the loan  3 signed blank cheque was  entrusted  to the 3^rd  opposite party  .  The  complainant  was remitting the monthly instalments regularly but each time, the opposite party was collecting  huge and exorbitant penal charges  from the complainant.  The agent of the opposite parties informed the  complainant that the  finance company had offered one time settlement scheme (OTS) for the loan.If the complainant is ready to pay  an amount of Rs.40,000/- on the loan as full and final settlement.  For confirming  the offer opposite party had issued a letter to the  complainant.  After paying the agreed amount of   Rs.40,000/- the 3rd opposite party demanded  more money for settling the loan, hence   the 3rd  opposite party had issued legal notice and filed a complaint before JFMC Aluva  and they also send an arbitration  letter dtd.15/7/2016 after receiving the entire amount, the act of  3^rd opposite party is clear   unfare trade practice .

6.     In the written version  3^rd opposite party  had admitted that  the complainant  entered into a loan agreement vide No.5000884056 dtd 28/11/2012 to purchase a Nano car for Rs.1,20,000/-.  The complainant agreed to repay the same with  the finance , cheque Rs.49,200/-  in 60 monthly instalments of Rs.3070/-.  Out of the total amount the  complainant paid only Rs.1,32,613/- till 6/9/16 and an amount of Rs.38,467/- was in a arrear till 6/9/16.    3^rd opposite party has not  given any offer to give NOC on payment of Rs. 40,000/-.  The opposite party had initiated legal proceedings for the recovery of the loan amount. The 3rd opposite party contended that  the  complainant was  a chronic  defaulter  and he  agreed to pay  penal interest  for delayed payment. Opposite parties  have not produced any authentic document from  the RBI or government to show that they  can  charge  huge  and exorbitant interest for the delayed instalment.  Hence we order to accept the  instalment without any  default and penal charges.

    Hence the petition partly allowed, the 3rd opposite party is  directed to settle the loan account of the complainant  by accepting the  instalment due without any  penal  or hidden charges and  order to return all the  documents collected  as security for the loan and issue NOC  of the vehicle  within 30 days  from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

         Pronounced in the open forum  on this  the   30^th     day of  May 2017 

                                                                                       SRI.BENNY.K         :MEMBER

                                                                                     SRI.S.GOPAKUMAR : PRESIDENT

Exts

P1-copy of  letter issued by 1^st OP

P2 series-cash receipts

P3-copy of legal notice

R1- copy of statement of account

PW1-Saji Gopalan-Complainant

eva