DATE OF FILING : 8.8.2016

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the  30th  day of   May,  2018

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

SRI. BENNY. K. MEMBER

CC NO.221/2016

Between

Complainant       :    Binumon P.B., S/o. Balakrishnan Nair,

3/617, Panchalil House,   

Rajakkandam P.O. Vandanmedu.

Now Residing at 

Panchalil House,

Vengalloor, Kumaramangalam,

Thodupuzha, Idukki.

(By Adv:  Joby George)

And

Opposite Parties                                          : 1.  The Branch Manager,

     Sreeram Transport Finance 

Company Ltd.,

     Kattappana Branch,

     Kanakkalil Building, 

     Edassery Junction, Kattappana. 

2.  Sreeram Transport Finance 

Company Ltd.,

     Kattappana Branch,

     Kanakkalil Building, 

     Edassery Junction, Kattappana. 

 

O R D E R

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

Case of the complainant is that,

          Complainant was the owner of a national permit lorry having Reg. No.KL-58F-8168.  For purchasing this vehicle, complainant availed a vehicle loan from opposite party  financiers for Rs.5,00,526/- and agreed to pay it in 48 instalments at the rate of Rs.17,541/- EMI.  Complainant remitted 13 instalments without any default, thereafter due to some financial difficulties, he failed to remit further instalments.  Hence the complainant surrendered the vehicle to the opposite party on 29.8.2014.  At the time of receiving the vehicle, the opposite party offered to relieve the complainant from the further liability 

    (cont.....2)

-  2  -

and the vehicle was surrendered towards the full and final settlement and the opposite party further offered to repay an amount of Rs.3 lakhs as the excess selling price to the complainant.  But the opposite party withdrawn these words and not given the amount to the complainant as promised.  While so, the complainant received a notice from the opposite party demanding him to pay Rs.2 lakhs as loan arrears.  This act of the opposite party is a gross deficiency in their service and unfair trade practice.  Against this, the complainant filed this petition for getting the reliefs such as to direct the opposite party to repay Rs.3 lakhs as the balance sale proceedings of the vehicle and also direct them to pay Rs.3 lakhs as compensation.

          Upon notice, opposite party entered appearance and filed detailed reply version.  In their version, opposite party contended that the complainant availed the above said loan on 22.3.2013 and the loan to be repaid was Rs.8,46,821/- by 48 instalments.  Out of this amount, an amount of Rs.5,35,607/- is the loan advance and an amount of Rs.3,11,214/- is the interest.  The complainant thereafter remitted few instalments and did not turned up to remit further.  The opposite party further contended that opposite party had not given any offer as alleged by the complainant.  The vehicle was sold after complying all legal formalities and the vehicle was sold for its maximum price of Rs.2,75,000/-.  The complainant is well aware of the sale and the contention contrary is denied.  The opposite party had demanded only what they are legally entitled.  The complainant was a chronic defaulter and the payment was made after the stipulated period.  Hence the opposite party is entitled to claim the over due charges as per the terms of the agreement.  The complainant did not received the amount as per the terms of the agreement and in order to escape from the liabilities, the complainant had approached the Forum by suppressing the real facts.  Hence there is no cause of action for this side and none of the relief sought for by the complainant is allowable.

          The parties produced their evidences in support of their respective averments.  Complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 inventory sheet is marked.  Opposite party produced statement of account of the above said loan and marked it as Ext.R1.

 

    (cont.....3)

-  3  -

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

          The POINT :-  We have heard the learned counsels for both the parties and have carefully gone through the records of the case.

          It was an admitted fact that the complainant availed a vehicle loan from opposite party bank for Rs.5,00,526/- and the loan amount including interest to be repaid in 48 instalments is Rs.8,46,821/- on 22.3.2013.  As per the proof affidavit and complaint, the complainant remitted 13 instalments at the rate of Rs.17,541/- per month and in total he remitted an amount of Rs.2,05,360/-.  But as per the written version and Ext.R1 statement of account, complainant availed an amount of Rs.5,35,607/- and interest for this amount is calculated as Rs.3,11,214/-.  In his complaint or proof affidavit, complainant suppressed the total amount which he agreed to be repaid as per the loan agreement.

          As per Ext.P1, inventory sheet, the opposite party took possession of the vehicle on 29.8.2014.   As per the written version, the vehicle was sold out after complying all the legal formalities.  Eventhough opposite party admitted that they sold the vehicle to its best price of Rs.2,75,000/- but no evidence is produced by the opposite party to convince the Forum that whether they conducted sale, after complying all the legal formalities.  Moreover, opposite party has not produced any evidence to substantiate their version that, whether they issued statutory notice to the complainant stating fact of auction or sale of the vehicle, for getting the complainant a chance to participate in the auction or repossessing the vehicle after paying the outstanding loan dues.  Opposite party also failed to produce any evidence to show that, to whom the vehicle was sold and for what price and when it was sold.   Opposite party is bound to produce all these evidences before the Forum for strengthening their plea.  From the above discussion, the Forum is of a considered view that, the sale of the vehicle without intimating the complainant is a gross deficiency in their service.  Moreover, it is unbelievable that the opposite party sold the vehicle like Ashok Leyland Truck, on a thrown away price of Rs.2,75,000/-.  Without sufficient materials of evidence, the version of the opposite party cannot believable.  Moreover, it is mandatory to intimate the party before conducting auction or 

(cont.....4)

-  4  -

other proceedings for selling the vehicle, for giving him a chance for participating the auction.  Hence opposite party miserably failed to comply the procedures and thereby committed gross deficiency in service and it is an unfair trade practice also.

          As a result of the above discussion, the complaint allowed.  Opposite party is directed to withdraw from their demand for paying any amount in the above discussed loan transaction and directed to close the above said vehicle loan and also directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.3000/- as cost to the complainant, within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default, till its realization.

          Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of May, 2018

      Sd/-

         SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

       Sd/-

          SRI. BENNY. K., MEMBER

 

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1               -  Binu P.B.  

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1            -  inventory sheet.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Ext.R1            -  statement of account.

 

 

Forwarded by Order,

 

 

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT