IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 20th day of February, 2023
Present: Sri.Manulal.V.S, President
Smt.Bindhu.R, Member
Sri.K.M.Anto, Member
CC No.151/2019 (Filed on 18/09/2019)
Complainant : Jaimon T.M, S/o Mathew,
Thottathil House, Monippally Village
Monippally Kara, Monippally P.O
Meenachil Taluk, Kottayam District.
(By Adv.K.R.Ramachandran)
Vs
Opposite parties : 1. Tata Motors Finance Ltd
1st Floor , Parayil Building
K.K.Road, Kottayam
Reptd by its Branch Manager
2. The Manager, Tata Motors Finance Ltd
Kottayam branch, 1st floor,
Parayil building
K.K.Road , Kottayam
(By Adv.Nirmal V Nair)
O R D E R
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
The brief of the complainant’s case is as follows. The complainant had purchased Tata Magic Iris vehicle and obtained Registration No.KL-67-1849 by availing a loan for Rs.2,60,000/- from the opposite parties. The loan amount was to be paid in 60 monthly installments with 10.5% interest at flat rate. The monthly installment of the principal amount was Rs.4,333/- and monthly interest to be paid was Rs.2,275/-. Actual amount to be paid was Rs.6,608/- every month. But the opposite party collected an amount of Rs.7,250/- from the complainant per month.
The complainant purchased the vehicle exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment. The complainant had remitted an amount of Rs.2,17,443/- up to 22/07/2016 covering a period of 32 months. The complainant failed to remit the monthly installments there after due to financial difficulties and surrendered the vehicle in January 2017 to the opposite parties. At the time of surrendering the vehicle the actual loan amount to be paid was Rs.2,44,496/- covering 37 installments out of which Rs.2,17,443/- was paid and the outstanding amount was only Rs.27,053/-. The balance for the remaining 23 installments was Rs.99,659/- and the total outstanding amount to be paid at the time of surrendering the vehicle was Rs.1,26,712/-.
The opposite parties assured that the vehicle would be sold for good price and the sale proceeds would be adjusted with the existing liability and if there is any excess amount that would be disbursed to the complainant.
The complainant received a notice dated 31/05/2019 demanding to pay an amount of Rs.1,27,986/-. On enquiry it was revealed that the vehicle KL.67-1849 was purchased by one Yesudasan for a price of Rs.1,40,000/- from a vehicle dealer.
The opposite party was duty bound to inform the details of sale of the vehicle to the complainant. The suppression of details of sale of the vehicle, the selling price from the complainant is illegal, unfair and deficiency in service. The vehicle was of 2013 model and was in good condition and it would fetch at least Rs.1,50,000/-. When the vehicle was surrendered only Rs.1,26,712/- is payable to the opposite party. The opposite party is liable to return Rs.23,288/- from the sale proceeds of the vehicle. The act of the opposite party is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. This complaint is filed for getting a refund of Rs.23,288/- with interest and compensation of Rs.10,000/- with cost Rs.5,000/- and for quashing the demand notice dated 31.05.2019 issued by the opposite parties.
On admission of the complaint, copy of the complaint was duly served to the opposite parties. The first opposite party appeared and filed the version.
The version of the first opposite party is as follows. As per the loan cum hypothecation agreement between the parties the complaint is not maintainable before this forum. The loan hypothecation agreement stipulates that any dispute arising from the agreement shall be resolved through an arbitrator to be appointed by the opposite party.
The opposite party was demanding only the amount legally due from the complainant in accordance with the loan agreement. The complainant had availed a loan for Rs.2,60,000/- for the purchase of a Tata Magic Iris vehicle on 31.10.2013. The loan amount was disbursed on 13.11.2013 and the loan was to be repaid in 60 monthly installments @ 10.5% interest per annum along with insurance of Rs.40,000/-. The opposite party had only realized the EMIs as prescribed and agreed by the complainant as per the loan agreement. Neither of the opposite parties is liable to pay any amount to the complainant.
The complainant was a consistent defaulter and the vehicle was surrendered by the complainant as per the loan agreement. The loanee shall be liable for repayment of all the amounts due after the sale of the surrendered vehicle. The notice sent was a demand for the amounts due after the sale of the surrendered vehicle. This claim cannot be termed as an unfair trade practice. The surrendered vehicle was sold in auction to the highest bidder and the opposite party is not aware of the amounts for which the bidder subsequently sells the vehicle. The complainant has not made any request for getting the details of the sale of the vehicle. The opposite party is not liable to pay any amount to the complainant and the complainant has based his calculation without accounting for the overdue interest and the penal interest as per the loan agreement.
Complainant filed proof affidavit and marked documents Exhibits A1 and A2 and Pw1 Yesudas was examined and marked documents Exhibits A3 and A4. The Branch Legal Officer Shanu of the first opposite party filed proof affidavit.
On the basis of the complaint, version of the opposite party and evidence adduced we would like to consider the following points.
- Whether the complaint is maintainable before the commission as per consumer protection Act.
- Whether there is unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
- If so what are the reliefs and costs.
Point No.1
The main contention of the opposite parties is that as per the loan cum hypothecation agreement between the parties the complaint is not maintainable before this forum. The loan hypothecation agreement stipulates that any dispute arising from the agreement shall be resolved through an arbitrator to be appointed by the opposite parties.
Consumer protection Act is a social benevolent legislation for the protection of the interest of the consumers. Section 100 of the consumer protection Act 2019 clearly prescribes that “The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.”
The contention of the opposite parties is that any dispute arising from the loan hypothecation agreement shall be resolved through an arbitrator to be appointed by the opposite parties is not a bar for preceding the complaint under consumer protection Act. Moreover the complainant purchased the vehicle exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment by availing the loan from the opposite parties. Thus complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties as defined in the Consumer protection Act. The contention of the opposite parties is not sustainable and the complaint is maintainable before this District commission.
Points 2 and 3
On going through the complaint, version of the opposite party and evidence adduced both the parties agrees that the complainant had availed a vehicle loan from the opposite parties for 2,60,000/- with 10.25% flat interest for the purchase of Tata Magic Iris Vehicle by an agreement dated 31/10/2013. The loan was to be repaid in 60 monthly installments.
The complainant had remitted 32 monthly installments to a total of Rs.2,17,443/- up to 22/07/2016. The complainant had surrendered the vehicle before the opposite parties on January 2017. At the time of surrendering the vehicle the complainant was liable to remit Rs.2,44,496/- out of which the complainant had paid Rs.2,17,443/- and the balance amount to be paid was Rs.27,053/-. For the remaining 23 installments the principal outstanding of the loan was Rs.99,609/- and the total amount due to the opposite party was only Rs.1,26,712/-.
The complainant had examined PW1 Yesudasan and PW1 deposed that he had purchased the Tata Magic Iris vehicle bearing Reg No.KL.67.1849 as per the Exhibit A3 sale agreement dated 23.05.2017 for an amount of Rs.1,32,500/-.
Even though the opposite parties claim that as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement the surrender of the vehicle shall not absolve the loanee of the liability of the loan agreement and the amounts due in the loan account, they failed to produce the loan agreement to establish this claim. The opposite party admits that the surrendered vehicle was sold in auction to the highest bidder. The opposite party failed to produce the details of the auction even before the commission. The opposite party also failed to produce any evidence regarding the intimation given to the complainant about the sale of the vehicle, the balance amount due in the loan account at the time of surrender of the vehicle, the amount received on the sale of the vehicle and the balance amount due in the loan account after deducting the sale proceeds from the outstanding balance.
The vehicle was surrendered by the complainant in January 2017 but the opposite party issued the Exhibit.A2 demand letter only on 31 May 2019 after a period of more than two years. Moreover Exhibit.A2 demand notice does not provide the statement of accounts. This act on the part of the opposite party is deficiency in service on their part. Considering all these facts we allow the complaint in part and pass the following orders.
We hereby quash the Exhibit.A2 demand notice dated 31/05/2019 issued by the opposite party to the complainant.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case no cost or compensation is allowed.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 20th day of February, 2023.
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member sd/-
Sri. Manulal.V.S, President sd/-
Smt.Bindhu.R, Member sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant.
A1- Customer order form (TATA) of Popular Mega Motors (India) Ltd
A2- Letter to the complainant from Tata Motors Finance Ltd dated 31.05.2019.
A3- Original Vehicle agreement dated 23.05.2017.
A4- Copy of certificate of registration.
Sworn statement from the side of complainant.
PW1- T.A.Yesudasan,S/o Anthony, Thevarmadom, Karumal P.O, Veloor, Thrissur.
By order
s/d
Assistant Registrar
