DATE OF FILING : 02.03.2012

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 31^st day of May, 2012

Present :

SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT. BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

SMT. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN MEMBER

CC NO.42/2012

Between

Complainant : Babu S/o Joseph,

Kochupurackal House,

Rajakkadu P.O.,

Idukki District.

(By Adv: Shiji Joseph)

And

Opposite Parties : 1. Tata Motor Finance Pvt. Ltd.,

DGP House, 4^th Floor,

Old Prabhadevi Road,

Mumbai – 400 025.

2. Tata Motors Finance,

Kattappana,

Kattappana P.O.,

Idukki District.

O R D E R

SMT. BINDU SOMAN (MEMBER)

The complainant availed a vehicle loan from the opposite party, Financial Banking Company. The loan agreement was executed on 30.9.2006 with the complainant and the 2^nd opposite party. The amount received as loan was Rs.5,48,000/-. The repayment was fixed for 47 instalments. The complainant stated that he was liable to repay Rs.7,11,136/- to the opposite party. The vehicle was Tipper Model 407 Tata Lorry. The complainant is a driver, the purpose of purchasing the vehicle was for his livelihood. Immediately after the purchase, the vehicle had showed complaints in the clutch assembly. Because of this complaint he could not ply the vehicle and hence he could not repay the loan. The complainant stated that the opposite party had collected Rs.35,998/- as additional charges such as cheque dishonoured charges, additional insurance charge and stamp recovery etc. As on 4.8.2010, the complainant's loan account due was Rs.75,423/- and penal interest charge of Rs.1,264/-. At that time the complainant received a notice of Arbitration case, in the notice the 1^st opposite party claimed Rs.1,77,133/-. After getting the notice, the opposite party's collection agent approached the complainant and demanded for a negotiation. In the settlement, the opposite party demanded

(cont....2)

- 2 -

Rs.33,555/- for full and final settlement. As per the settlement, the complainant remitted Rs.33,555/- on 31.8.2011. Even after receiving the amount, the opposite party did not give the hypothecation termination. The opposite party had obtained an arbitration award against the complainant for Rs.1,77,133/-. The award of arbitration is not binding to the complainant because the opposite party had suggested a settlement. The opposite party hided the settlement conditions and demanding such an amount from the complainant which leads to this petition. In the petition, the complainant demanded the hypothecation termination letter. The act of the opposite party made the complainant into some difficulties and he requested for cost and compensation. In this case, the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party are the same concern. The 1^st opposite party is the head office. The 2^nd opposite party is its branch office at Kattappana.

2. In spite of notice of the Forum, the opposite parties are absent and made exparte.

3. The point for consideration is that whether there was any deficiency in service from the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?

4. The evidence consists of oral testimony of Pws1 and 2 and Exts.P1 to P6 marked on the side of the complainant.

5. The POINT :- The complainant was examined as PW1 and marked Exts.P1 to P6 and one witness also examined as PW2. Ext.P1 is the Finance statement of the complainant's loan account issued by the opposite party on 13.1.2012. Ext.P2 is the repayment schedule issued by the opposite party. Ext.P3 is the notice copy of arbitration case. Ext.P4 is the arbitration award dated 20.4.2011. Ext.P5 is the receipt given by the opposite party dated on 31.8.2011 for Rs.33,555/-. Ext.P6 is a notice issued by the opposite party to the complainant dated 1.3.2011. PW2 is the witness of the petitioner, who is the former staff of the opposite party deposed that Ext.P5 receipt is for settlement of the loan account. He himself collected the amount from the complainant.

The disputed matter in this petition is that the rate of interest charged by the opposite party. The opposite party finance company has not adduced any evidence to show that they have the right to collect 36% interest from the customer. Ext.P1 finance statement also included different charges. Ext.P3 is the notice from arbitrator and Ext.P4 is the award of arbitrator. Ext.P3 dated 17.11.2010 and its award dated 20.4.2011. Ext.P5, the receipt issued by the opposite party to the complainant for Rs.33,555/- was dated 31.8.2011. These documents reveals the fact that after the arbitration award, the opposite party and complainant had negotiated

(cont...3)

- 3 -

the disputed matter and as per settlement, the complainant paid Rs.33,555/-. In this circumstance we find that the petition of the complainant is just and fair.

In the result, the petition partially allowed. The opposite parties are directed to issue the statement of account of the complainant's loan and settle the loan account of the complainant's vehicle No.KL-6D-6704 by calculating 12% interest per annum for the defaulted instalments for the defaulted period. The opposite parties are also directed to issue loan termination letter within 30 days of the settlement of the amount.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 31^st day of May, 2012

Sd/-

SMT. BINDU SOMAN (MEMBER)

Sd/-

I agree SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

I agree SMT. LIZAMMA ABRAHAM. K. (MEMBER)

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1 - Babu Joseph

PW2 - Suneer K.M.

On the side of the Opposite Parties :

Nil.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 - Finance statement of the complainant's loan account.

Ext.P2 - The repayment schedule of the loan account.

Ext.P3 - Copy of the notice for arbitration proceeding.

Ext.P4 - Copy of the arbitration award dated 20.4.2011.

Ext.P5(series) - The receipts given by the opposite party dated 31.8.2011,

31.3.2011 and 22.10.2008.

Ext.P6 - The notice issued by the opposite party to the complainant dated

1.3.2011.

On the side of the Opposite Parties :

Nil.