Kerala

Idukki

CC/10/141

Rinto Joseph - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tata Motors Finance - Opp.Party(s)

Adv.Sibi Thomas

30 Aug 2010

ORDER


CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKIConsumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Idukki, Kuyilimala, Painavu PO-685603
Complaint Case No. CC/10/141
1. Rinto JosephMarippurathu(H),Kattappana.P.OIdukkiKerala ...........Appellant(s)

Versus.
1. Tata Motors FinanceGround Floor,S.L.Plaza,Palarivattom,CochinErnakulamKerala ...........Respondent(s)



BEFORE:
HONORABLE Laiju Ramakrishnan ,PRESIDENTHONORABLE Sheela Jacob ,MemberHONORABLE Bindu Soman ,Member
PRESENT :

Dated : 30 Aug 2010
JUDGEMENT

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

 

DATE OF FILING : 08.07.2010


 

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 30th day of August, 2010


 

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.141/2010

Between

Complainant : Rinto Joseph,

Marippurathu House,

Kattappana P.O,

Idukki District.

(By Adv: Sibi Thomas)

And

Opposite Party : M/s.Tata Motors Finance,

Ground Floor, S.L Plaza,

Palarivattom,

Cochin – 25.

O R D E R

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

 

The complainant purchased a Tata 407 lorry bearing Reg.No. KL-6D-1598 by availing a loan from the opposite party finance company as loan No.10833034. As per the loan agreement the amount was to be repaid in monthly instalments. The complainant was not able to repay the loan promptly, so there was a due in the loan account. But after that the complainant paid the entire instalments without any due to the opposite party. So the complainant requested the opposite party to return the documents and cheque leaves given to the opposite party at the time of availing the loan and also for terminating the hypothecation agreement. The opposite party offered the same. But after that the opposite party sent a demand notice to the complainant to pay an overdue amount of Rs.23,731/-and OD Charges Rs.46,547/-. It is also intimated that legal action would be taken against the complainant if it is not paid within a fixed period. The complainant is not entitled to pay any amount to the opposite party as on 10.03.2010. The opposite party sent a notice to the complainant on 20.02.2010 demanding Rs.21,081.53 as due instalments, the complainant paid the same on 28.02.2010 and on 27.03.2010 with an amount of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively and receipts were also issued by the opposite party. So the opposite party is not entitled to demand any amount from the complainant after the payment of the loan amount. So this petition is filed for cancelling the notice issued on 10.03.2010 and also for getting a direction to return the documents given to the opposite party at the time of availing the loan.
 

2. The opposite party was absent and called exparte.

 

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

4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P3(series) marked on the side of the complainant.
 

5. The POINT :- The petition is filed for getting back the cheque leaves given as security for availing the vehicle loan and also for cancelling the demand notice issued by the opposite party after paying the entire loan amount. The complainant is examined as PW1. PW1 deposed that he was not able to repay the loan promptly. But he paid the entire amount with overdue interest to the opposite party after that. On 20.02.2010 a demand notice was issued by the opposite party for Rs. 21,081.53 which was the due amount in the loan account of the complainant including the overdue charges. Ext.P1 is the copy of the same. The complainant paid Rs.10,000/- on 28.02.2010 and Rs.15,000/- on 27.03.2010. Ext.P3(series) are the copy of the receipts issued by the opposite party for the same. But the opposite party issued another notice demanding an overdue amount of Rs. 23,731/- and OD Charges Rs.46,547/-, for a total amount of Rs.70,278/- also demanded to pay the same within 20th March, 2010. Otherwise they would proceed against the complainant under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and Section (9) and Section (17) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act. As per the complainant, he is not liable to pay any amount after payment of the loan amount, demanded as per Ext.P1. After paying the entire loan amount as per Ext.P1, the complainant requested for the documents and cheque leaves given at the time of receiving the loan. The opposite party assured the same, but without any reason they have sent Ext.P2 notice.
 

6. It is admitted that the complainant made defaults in the payment of loan availed by him. But it was cleared after getting Ext.P1 demand notice and the receipts issued by the opposite party for the same are also produced, which are Ext.P3(series). After that the opposite party has sent another notice as per Ext.P2, but there is no explanation or any statement of account produced by the opposite party for the same. As per the complainant he had paid the entire loan amount and he is entitled to get all the documents including cheque leaves issued to the opposite party at the time of availing the loan. The opposite party never supplied the documents and cheque leaves received at the time of availing the loan even after payment of the entire loan. It is a gross deficiency from the part of the opposite party. These matters were not challenged by the opposite party. So we think that the complainant is entitled to get the entire documents including the cheque leaves given to the opposite party at the time of availing the loan.


 

Hence the petition allowed. The opposite party is directed to return all the documents including the cheque leaves issued to them at the time of availing the loan for the vehicle No.KL-6D-1598 Tata 407 Lorry, to the complainant. The opposite party is restrained from further proceedings against the complainant for the due of the loan for the vehicle. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- 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 August, 2010
 

 

Sd/-

SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)
 

 

Sd/-

SMT. SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)
 

Sd/-

SMT. BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)


 

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of Complainant :

PW1 - Rinto Joseph

On the side of Opposite Party :

Nil

Exhibits:

On the side of Complainant:

Ext.P1 - Copy of Notice dated 20.02.2010 issued by the opposite party to the complainant

Ext.P2 - Copy of Notice dated 10.03.2010 issued by the opposite party to the complainant

Ext.P3(a) - Photocopy of Receipt dated 28.02.2010 for Rs.10,000/- issued by the opposite party

Ext.P3(b) - Photocopy of Receipt dated 27.03.2010 for Rs.15,000/- issued by the opposite party

On the side of Opposite Party :

Nil


[HONORABLE Sheela Jacob] Member[HONORABLE Laiju Ramakrishnan] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE Bindu Soman] Member