IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Monday, the 28th day of February, 2011
Filed on 16/03/2010
Present
1. Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
2. Sri. K.Anirudhan (Member)
3. Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
CC/No. 69/2010
between
Complainant:- Opposite party:-
Mariamma Sebastian Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd.
W/o Sebastian N.J. Represented by its Branch Manager
HouseNo.412, Nagaparambil House 4th Floor, Thadikaran Building
Pazhaveedu P.O., Alappuzha Palarivattom, Cochin – 682 025
(By Adv. Jose Y. James) (By Adv. Lal K. Joseph)
O R D E R
SRI. JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)
The complainant’s case is as follows:- The complainant in 2007 availed a loan amount of Rs.1,12,000/- (Rupees one lakh twelve thousand only) from the opposite party, and purchased a Tata Indica car. As per the loan agreement entered into between the parties the loan amount was to be paid off in equal installments. As such the complainant issued 23 cheques of her son each for Rs.5875/- (Rupees five thousand eight hundred and seventy five only) to the opposite party. The complainant paid off the entire amount by December 2008. In the end of the repayment phase, some three cheques happened to be dishonored. However, the complainant effected direct payment of the said cheque amounts. Notwithstanding, the payments being cleared off, the opposite party was disinclined to issue certificate of no-objection. The complainant repeatedly called on the opposite party with all relevant records of repayment which yielded no useful result. As a last resort, the complainant on 8th February 2010, caused to send a legal notice to the opposite party. The same didn’t evoke any response. The complainant paid off the entire amount. The opposite party is liable to issue the no objection certificate. The act of the opposite party is fraudulent. The complainant underwent mental agony at the hands of the opposite party. Got aggrieved on this the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and other relief.
2. On notice being sent, the opposite party turned up and filed version. The contention of the opposite party is that quite a lot of cheques issued by the complainant were bounced. As per the loan agreement the complainant is obliged to make payment of bouncing charges, late fee and other penal interest. The complainant has not been inclined to clear off the said amount, the opposite party argues. The complainant approached this Forum suppressing the said material facts. The complainant’s attempt is not shirk away from the binding liability. The opposite party is entitled to obtain the aforesaid amount from the opposite party. As such the service of the opposite party is never deficient, and the complaint is only to be dismissed with cost to the opposite party, the opposite party asserts.
3. On the side of complainant, the complainant’s son was examined as PW1, and the documents Exts. A1 to A6 were marked. Ext. A1 is the computer generated bank statements, A2 is the original cash receipts issued by the opposite party, A3 is the original loan chart issued by the opposite party, Ext.A4 is the copy of the lawyer’s notice, A5 is the postal acknowledgement card and A6 is the copy of the RC Book. The opposite party cross examined the complainant, but on its side was examined or no documents produced.
4. Taking into account the contentions of the parties , the questions come up before us for consideration are:-
(1) Whether the complainant paid off the loan amount?
(2) Whether the opposite party is entitled to any amount as claimed by them?
(3) Whether the complainant is entitled to the no-objection certificate?
5. According to the complainant, the complainant availed a loan amount of Rs.1,12,000/- (Rupees one lakh twelve thousand only) from the 1st opposite party. She paid off the entire amount viz. Rs1,12,000/- (Rupees one lakh twelve thousand only) . There is no dispute as to the amount, the complainant availed as loan and as to the amount she paid off. The specific contention of the opposite party is that some of the cheques issued by the complainant were at first dishonored. Admittedly the complainant paid off the said cheque amounts. But that alone will not suffice. According to the opposite party, the complainant is liable to pay off the late fee, bouncing charges and other penal interest. We meticulously perused the materials available on record. It is worth while to notice that the opposite party conspicuously did not specify any where in the course of the proceedings the exact quantum of charges the complainant owed to the opposite party. Interestingly the opposite party produced no evidence, nor a scrap of paper to substantiate its contention. Barring a bare statement, nothing is available on record suggesting that the complainant is liable to pay any particular amount to the opposite party. Needless to say mere statements do not take the place of proof. It is worthy of notice that the opposite parties has no case that the complainant has yet to pay off any installments. As such, it is to be reasonably inferred that the complainant has paid off the entire installments. On a plain perusal of the evidence available on record, it appears that the attempt of the opposite parties is to extract some more amounts from the complainant by placing her between the devil and the deep sea. We seriously take notice that the financing establishments similar to the opposite party often pursue unscrupulous method to fleece money from their ill-fated customers through devious and deceitful means namely holding back their valuable documents in hostage or other. It goes without saying the complainant is entitled to relief she sought for.
6. In view of the discussions made herein above, the opposite party is directed to issue no-objection certificate facilitating her to cancel the endorsement of hypothecation from the RC Book. The opposite party is further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation and Rs.1000/- (Rupees thousand only) as cost to the complainant. The opposite party shall comply with the order within 30 days of the receipt of this order.
The complaint is allowed accordingly.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 28th day of February 2011.
Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah:
Sd/- Sri. K. Anirudhan:
Sd/- Smt.N.Shajitha Beevi:
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Suresh Sebastian (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Computer generator bank statements
Ext.A2 - Original cash receipts issued by the opposite party
Ext.A3 - Original loan chart issued by the opposite party
Ext.A4 - Copy of the lawyer’s notice
Ext.A5 - Postal acknowledgement card
Ext.A6 - Copy of the RC Book
Evidence of the opposite party:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite party/S.F.
Typed by:-pr/-
Compared by:-
