IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 28th day of November, 2011.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President).
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)
C.C.No.34/2011 (Filed on 09.02.2011)
Between:
Elizabeth Joseph,
Chiraparambil House,
Perumthuruthy.P.O.,
Peringara Village,
Thiruvalla Taluk,
Pathanamthitta. …… Complainant
And:
1. Tata Motors Ltd. (TML Financial Service Ltd.),
Rep. by its General Manager, 1st Floor,
Cybertech House, Plot No.B-63/65 Road-
No.21/34, J.B. Sawant Marg, Wagle Estate,
Thane West – 400 604, Maharashtra.
2. The Branch Manager,
Tata Motor Finance, Ground Floor,
Geetha Trade Centre,
Near YWCA, Nagampadom,
M.C. Road, Kottayam – 686 001.
(By Adv. P. Fazil) ….. Opposite parties.
O R D E R
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member):
Complainant filed this complaint for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. Fact of the case in brief is as follows: 1st opposite party is the General Manager of Tata Motors Ltd. and 2nd opposite party is the Branch Manager. Complainant availed a vehicle loan from opposite parties for the purchase of a Tata Sumo. The said loan account is closed by mutual consent on paying ` 1,68,000 by the complainant. Opposite parties also promised to issue NOC for lifting hypothecation of the vehicle within 15 days of the remittance of the said amount. But even after two years, opposite parties not so far issued NOC for lifting hypothecation of the vehicle. Moreover they repeatedly demanding more amount from the complainant by way of legal expenses, bank charges, collection agency charges etc. Complainant at present not in a position to use effectively the said vehicle or sell the vehicle. During the last two years, the value of the vehicle was diminished more than 50%.
3. Opposite parties are legally bound to issue NOC to complainant to lift hypothecation of her vehicle. The demand of the same and the non issue of NOC amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service. Hence this complaint for getting the NOC with compensation and cost.
4. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version stating that complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. According to them, complainant has not came with clean hands. Complainant is a chronic defaulter of the instalments. She failed to repay the loan instalments within stipulated time and also made part payments. The late payment and part payment resulted in addition of the delayed payment charges or accrued overdue charges along with remaining balance towards the instalments. Therefore, the complainant violated the terms of the agreement.
5. Complainant has deposited post dated cheques with opposite parties towards the repayment of the loan instalments. A total of 47 cheques have been dishonoured due to insufficient funds. Opposite parties paid ` 15,727.50 as bank charges due to the dishonour of cheques. Moreover opposite parties incurred an amount of ` 35,945.08 as bank charges, retainer charges, legal expenses, stamp recovery, insurance provision etc. Since complainant is a party to the contract, she is bound to follow the terms and condition of agreement and not have the right to challenge in a belated stage. According to opposite parties, as on 10.5.2011, there is an outstanding accrued overdue charges/delayed payment charges of ` 50,016.96 due from the complainant. The complainant malafidely evaded in paying the said amount. Until and unless the said amount is not paid, opposite parties are not in a position to issue NOC to complainant. Therefore, there is no latches on the part of opposite parties. This Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this case. If any dispute, complainant has to approach Civil Court for appropriate remedy. Hence opposite parties canvassed for the dismissal of the complaint with cost.
6. From the above pleadings, following points are raised for consideration:
(1) Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum?
(2) Whether the reliefs sought for in the complaint are allowable?
(3) Reliefs & Costs?
7. Evidence of the complaint consists of the oral deposition of PW1 and Exts.A1 and A2. After the closure of evidence, both parties were heard.
8. Point Nos. 1 to 3:- In order to prove the complainant’s case, complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 and A2. Ext.A1 is the letter dated 20.11.2008 issued by opposite parties for settling the loan account of complainant. Ext.A2 is the D.D receipt for ` 1,68,000 for the D.D issued to opposite parties by complainant.
9. Apart from version, opposite parties had not adduced any oral or documentary evidence.
10. On the basis of the contention and averment of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on record. Complainant’s case is that opposite parties had not issued NOC to her vehicle even though she foreclosed the entire loan amount. Opposite parties contention is that complainant is a defaulter of instalments and thereby breached the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. As on 10.5.2011, there is an outstanding accrued overdue charges delayed payment charges of ` 50,016.96 from complainant. Unless and until the said amount is not paid opposite parties are not in a position to issue NOC to complainant.
11. It is seen that there is no dispute regarding the loan availed by the complainant. The only dispute is that opposite parties failed to issue NOC even after settling the loan account by the complainant. On a perusal, Ext.A1 it is seen that opposite parties intimated their willingness to settle the loan account for ` 1,68,000 and also promised to issue NOC within 15 days of the remittance of the said amount. Ext.A2 shows that complainant had remitted ` 1,68,000 in compliance of Ext.A1. Therefore, the said loan account is fully and finally settled. Evidence on record shows that opposite parties had not issued NOC till now.
12. According to opposite parties, complainant is a defaulter and delayed the payment of instalment and thereby breached the terms and condition. She has to pay ` 50,016.98 as dues to opposite parties. According to opposite parties, until and unless the said amount is not paid, they are not in a position to issue NOC. On a perusal of Ext.A1, the calculated and settled amount is ` 1,68,000 and it includes all dues, instalment etc. They also promised to stop all proceeding in civil and criminal cases against the complainant if she pays the said amount. Ext.A2 shows that complainant remitted ` 1,68,000 as per Ext.A1. Evidence on record shows that, opposite parties so far not issued NOC and further demanded ` 50,016.98 for clearing the account and issuing NOC. Opposite parties had not produced statement of account relating to complainant’s vehicle loan to substantiate their contention. Apart from version, opposite parties failed to adduce any oral or documentary evidence either to prove their contention or to disprove complainant’s case. Therefore, complainant’s case stands proved against the opposite parties.
13. From the overall facts and circumstances of this case and on the basis of the available evidence, we find that acceptance of Ext.A2 amount and non-issuance of NOC is unjust, unfair, illegal, irrational unscrupulous and against all cannons of justice. It is a clear deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Therefore complaint is maintainable and allowable in part.
14. In the result, complaint is allowed partly, thereby opposite parties are directed to issue the NOC of the complainant’s vehicle No.KL.03-M.3333 with a compensation of ` 3,000 (Rupees Three Thousand only) and a cost of ` 2,000 (Rupees Two Thousand only) within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to realize an amount of ` 45,000 (Rupees Forty Five Thousand only) from the opposite parties along with 9% interest per annum from today till the realization of the whole amount.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of November, 2011.
(Sd/-)
N. Premkumar,
(Member)
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : Elizabeth Joseph
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Photocopy of letter dated 20.11.2008 issued by the opposite parties
to the complainant.
A2 : Photocopy of the counterfoil of State Bank of Travancore deposit slip
dated 22.11.2008
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
(By Order)
(sd/-)
Senior Superintendent.
Copy to: (1) Elizabeth Joseph, Chiraparambil House, Perumthuruthy.P.O.,
Peringara Village, Thiruvalla Taluk, Pathanamthitta. (2) The General Manager, Tata Motors Ltd. (TML Financial Service Ltd.),
1st Floor, Cybertech House, Plot No.B-63/65 Road No.21/34, J.B. Sawant
Marg, Wagle Estate, Thane West – 400 604, Maharashtra.
(3) The Branch Manager, Tata Motor Finance, Ground Floor,
Geetha Trade Centre, Near YWCA, Nagampadom, M.C. Road,
Kottayam - 686 001.
(4) The stock file.
