BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD                                        :  PRESIDENT

SMT. R. SATHI                                         :  MEMBER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR                                  : MEMBER

C.C. No. 403/2013 Filed on 27.09.2013

Dated: 28.02.2014

Complainant:

Sajith. P, ‘Sangeethakala Bhavan’, Konchiravila, Manacaud P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.

                                  (By adv. Sumam. C.S)

Opposite parties:

1. Tata Motors Finance Ltd., I Think Techno Campus Building, ‘A’, 2^nd Floor, OFF Pokharan No.2, Adjacent to TCS Yantra Park, Thane (West-400 607)

1. The Branch Manager, Tata Motors Finance ltd., 6^th Floor, Vipanchika Towers, Opp: Govt. Guest House, Thycaud P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-14

This C.C having been heard on 29.01.2014, the Forum on 28.02.2014 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. R. SATHI: MEMBER

The case of the complainant is that he had availed a loan from the 2^nd opposite party for an amount of Rs. 2,35,000/- as per agreement for purchasing Indica car.  He purchased the car from Kulathunkal Motors and the actual price of the vehicle was Rs. 2,82,250/- and Rs. 80,087/- was paid as an initial payment and for the remaining amount of Rs. 2,35,000/- the complainant availed finance from the 2^nd opposite party.  The said loan was equated into 60 equal installments at the rate of Rs. 5,400/- and the 2^nd opposite party had also availed 20 signed post dated cheques for the above said amount from the complainant.  The complainant was regularly making the payment and on completion of 20^th installment 2^nd opposite party had demanded another 20 cheques for the like amount.  But the opposite party informed the complainant that the signature in the cheque differed from the earlier and in that context the complainant was making payment directly to the 2^nd opposite party on or before the proposed date and the 2^nd opposite party issued receipts for the same.  The complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party for the closure of the loan amount and for obtaining NOC and for removing the endorsement in the R.C Book, then the 2^nd opposite party informed the complainant that he has to remit Rs. 17,000/- more for closing the loan amount.  The reason stated by the 2^nd opposite party for heavy dues was that the cheques which was issued by the complainant was bounced.  Moreover the complainant obtained a demand notice on 09.07.2013 stating that he had to pay Rs. 17,300/- for clearing his dues to the 2^nd opposite party on 17.07.2013 and on 16.08.2013 the complainant sent a lawyer’s notice to both opposite parties and for that 2^nd opposite party sent a vague reply stating that the complainant had to pay a sum of Rs. 34,310.83 more to the 2^nd opposite party, then the NOC will be issued.  The complainant has been put to extreme harassment, mental agony due to this indifferent attitude of the opposite parties.  Hence this complaint to direct the 2^nd opposite party to issue NOC and to clear the endorsement made in the R.C Book, to direct the opposite parties to set aside notice issued to the complainant for an amount of Rs. 34,310.38 and to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainant for mental agony and inconvenience caused and pay the cost of the proceedings.

In spite of acceptance of notice from the Forum, the opposite parties neither appeared before the Forum nor has filed their version.  Hence opposite parties remain ex-parte.

Complainant has filed his affidavit in lieu of chief examination.  Exts. P1 to P7 marked.

The issues for consideration are:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed for?

Issues (i) & (ii):- The case of the complainant is that he has remitted the entire loan amount in 60 installments and also produced receipts and statement issued by the 2^nd opposite party.  The opposite parties have not enlightened the Forum on what basis they claimed the amount as per demand notice dated 09.07.2013 which was marked as Ext. P6.  As per the complainant he has remitted 60 installments and the total amount was paid by him.  A demand notice dated 09.07.2013 sent by the opposite party was produced by the complainant and is marked as Ext. P6.  In that demand notice opposite party demanded only Rs. 17,300/- and in the reply notice dated 14.08.2013 which is marked as Ext. P5 they stated that Rs. 34,310.38 is payable by the client to close the loan account.  The reason stated for the above said amount is that the complainant agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 89,300/- towards finance charges.  But the said amount was not mentioned anywhere in the demand notice.  Moreover no documentary proof has been brought on record by the opposite parties to substantiate their claim.  On perusing the bills produced by the complainant it is seen that he had remitted 60 installments.

Considering all the facts and circumstances, we find that the rightful claim of the complainant has been unlawfully denied by the opposite parties.  So the 2^nd opposite party is directed to issue NOC to the complainant and the notice issued to the complainant by the opposite parties for an amount of Rs. 34,310.38 is cancelled.  They are also directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- towards costs of the proceedings.

In the result, complaint is allowed by directing the 2^nd opposite party to issue NOC to the complainant and the notice issued to the complainant for an amount of Rs. 34,310.38 is cancelled.   The opposite parties are also directed to pay costs of Rs. 2,000/- within one month of the date of receipt of this order.

   A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 28^th day of February 2014.

Sd/-

R. SATHI                      : MEMBER

          Sd/-

G. SIVAPRASAD                   : PRESIDENT

          Sd/-

LIJU B. NAIR                : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 403/2013

APPENDIX

  I      COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

                             NIL

 II      COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

          P1     - Copy of invoice dated 22.05.2008 for Rs. 2,82,250/- issued by

                      Kulathunkal Motors.

          P2     - Copy of cash voucher for Rs. 73,000/- dated 21.05.2008.

          P3     - Copy of advocate notice dated 16.08.2013

          P4     - Copy of postal receipts.

P5     - Copy of advocate notice dated 14.08.2013.

P6     - Copy of service notice by post & Affixing dated 09.07.2013.

P7     - Statement of accounts and receipt for the year 2010, 2011, 2012 and

            2013.

III      OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

                             NIL

 IV     OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

NIL

                                                                                                      Sd/-

PRESIDENT

jb