DATE OF FILING : 17.12.2009
BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI
Dated this the 30th day of June, 2010
Present:
SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT
SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER
SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER
C.C No.239/2009
Between
Complainant : V.R.Karunakaran S/o Raghavan,
Vanchipurackal House,
Chithirapuram P.O,
Anachal,
Idukki District.
(By Adv: Shiji Joseph)
And
Opposite Parties : 1. M/s.Tata Motors Finance Limited,
No.8/311, M.C Road,
Velloorkunnam P.O,
Muvattupuzha,
Ernakulam District.
(By Advs: R.Pradeep & S.Praveen)
2. Vava,
Manager,
Tata Motors Finance Limited,
No.8/311, M.C Road,
Velloorkunnam P.O,
Muvattupuzha,
Ernakulam District.
O R D E R
SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)
The complainant purchased a Tata ACE Mini Truck bearing Reg.No.KL-06D-1590 for his livelihood. For purchasing the vehicle the complainant availed a loan of Rs.2,36,000/- as per the approach of the agent of the 2nd opposite party. The loan period was 60 months and the loan amount has to be repaid in monthly instalment of Rs.5,850/-. But the complainant could not remit the monthly instalments because his father-in-law was under treatment of cancer, so he spent lakhs of money for which. Due to the failure in repayment of monthly instalments, the agents of the opposite party contacted the complainant, they told the complainant that if the complainant surrenders the vehicle, complainant would be absolved from his liability. On 7.05.2007 the complainant surrendered the vehicle at the authorised workshop of Tata Motors at Adimali. The 2nd opposite party had received the vehicle. At the time of surrendering the vehicle the value of the vehicle was above 3 lakhs. So the complainant believed that he was absolved from the loan liability. At the time of purchasing the vehicle he paid Rs.28,350/- as margin money and also paid 6 instalments of Rs.5,850/- each. On 17.07.2007 the complainant got a notice from the Ist opposite party asking to pay Rs.6,270/- as insurance charges. On 28.07.2007 the complainant got another notice for payment of Rs.3,79,918.95 as overdue charges. He also received a notice from the Arbitrator from Mumbai, to that notice he gave a reply through telegram. Complainant stated that the Ist opposite party after receiving the vehicle till this date not disposed the same, and not closed the loan account. They demanded highly exorbitant amount from the complainant, is an unfair trade practice and the complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence he filed complaint before this Forum.
2. The opposite parties filed written version. In the written version, they admitted the loan of Rs.2,10,000/- for purchasing the vehicle. The opposite parties submitted that the said loan is repayable as and by way of 48 equated monthly instalments each in the sum of Rs.5,850/-. As per the loan transaction, the complainant is bound to repay the loan. The opposite party again stated that the complainant has been irregular in the payment of the instalments as such caused immense loss to the respondent company. The opposite party had given a copy of statement of account of the complainant's loan account. As per the statement of account, the complainant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.56,871.50 as overdue instalments and Rs.60,682.57 towards the accrued overdue charges apart from the future instalments. The opposite party stated that the complainant have sufficient financial capacity to repay his loan. They admitted the fact that the complainant has surrendered the vehicle on 2.06.2007 to the respondent company. It is further submitted that the opposite party had sold the vehicle on 29.07.2009 for Rs.65,000/-. The opposite party had initiated Arbitration proceedings against the complainant. They issued two notices to the complainant but the complainant did not appear in the said Arbitration proceedings. They denied the notice dated 17.07.2007 for payment of insurance charges. The opposite party had never charged any insurance charges. The Arbitration proceedings initiated against the complainant in accordance with terms and conditions mentioned in the loan agreement. The opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service as alleged in the complaint.
3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?
4. The opposite parties filed written version. But they have no representation at the time of chief examination of the complainant. For the next posting dates also the opposite parties were absent. So the opposite parties are called exparte in this case.
5. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P5 marked on the side of the complainant.
6. The POINT :- The complainant filed affidavit and examined as PW1. Ext.P1(series) are the receipts of Popular Mega Motors and Ext.P2 is a lawyer notice dated 6.03.2007. Ext.P3 is a notice dated 17.01.2009 from the opposite party demanding the insurance premium of vehicle. Ext.P4 is an advocate notice dated 28.07.2009. Ext.P5 is an Arbitration Proceedings – First Hearing Notice dated 25.09.2009 addressed to the complainant. As per Ext.P1 document, the transaction had done on 1.02.2006. The complainant surrendered the vehicle on 17.05.2007. According to the written version they sold the disputed vehicle on 29.07.2009 for Rs.65,000/-. This shows that the opposite party had kept the vehicle in a very long time without any profit. It is also stated that the vehicle fetch Rs. 3 lakhs now. The complainant paid Rs.28,350/- at the time of purchase and paid 6 instalments of Rs.5,850/- each. The opposite party had claimed insurance premium in the year 2009. All proceedings against the complainant had taken by the opposite party only in 2009. After the expiry of a long time the opposite party claimed an exorbitant amount from the complainant is a deficiency of service. We find deficiency of service in the part of the opposite party in this regard.
In the result, the petition allowed. The opposite parties are restrained from further proceedings against the complainant and his properties for the loan of vehicle No.KL-06D-1590 availed by the complainant and also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,500/- as cost of this petition within one month of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of June, 2010
Sd/-
SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)
Sd/-
I agree SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)
Sd/-
I agree SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)
APPENDIX
On the side of Complainant :
PW1 - V.R.Karunakaran
On the side of Opposite Parties :
Nil
Exhibits:
On the side of Complainant:
Ext.P1(series) - Receipts(2 Nos) issued by M/s.Popular Mega Motors(I) Limited
Ext.P2 - Lawyer Notice dated 6.03.2007 issued by the opposite parties
Ext.P3 - Notice dated 17.01.2009 issued by the opposite parties by requesting the complainant to pay the insurance premium
Ext.P4 - Lawyer Notice dated 28.07.2009 issued by the opposite parties
Ext.P5 - Arbitration Proceedings – First Hearing Notice dated 25.09.2009 issued by the opposite parties
On the side of Opposite Parties :
Nil
