Date of Filling :14.12.2012.
Date of Disposal: 22.09.2014.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,TIRUVARUR.
THIRU.K.JAYABALAN B.SC., B.L., …...PRESIDENT.
THIRU.R.RAMESH. B.Com., M.A., …..MEMBER-1
TMT.K.SIVASANKARI. B.SC.,M.C.A.,M.Phil., …..MEMBER-2
CC.NO.20/2012
DECIDED ON THIS 22nd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014.
R.Elamaran,
S/O K. Ramalingam Pillai,
Ammaiyappan Village,
Krishnan Koil Street,
Thiruvarur(District). ..….Complainant
/versus/
1.The Branch Manager,
Sriram City Union Finance Limited,
Kumbakonam.
2. The Branch Manager,
Sriram City Union Finance Limited,
Tiruvarur. ……Opposite Party
This complaint having come up for final hearing before us on 09.09.2014 and having heard the arguments of ThiruM.Ravindran B.A.,B.L., counsel for the complainant and Thiru.S.R.Ayyapan B.A.B.L., counsel for the opposite parties and having stood over for consideration till this day and the Forum passed the following
ORDER
BY PRESIDENT,THIRU.K.JAYABALAN,B.Sc.,B.L.,
This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:
1) The complainant is a resident of Ammayappan Village, Kudavasal Taluk, Tiruvarur District and he purchased a Maruthi Omni Van for Rs.80,000/-(Rupees eighty thousand only)as loan lend by the 1st opposite party on 09.02.2008. and he agreed to repay the loan in 36 equal installments at the rate of Rs.3089/- per month. The complainant repaid all the installments amounting to Rs.1,11,204/-(One lakh eleven thousand two hundred and four only) including interest to the collecting agent of the 1st opposite party thus the complainant had repaid the entire loan amount. However the opposite parties did not return the R.C. book of the vehicle and N.O.C. to the complainant in spite of several demand made by him. Hence the complaint issued a letter dated 13.07.2011. to the 1st opposite party requesting to deliver the R.C. book and N.O.C. However opposite parties neither replied to the latter of the complainant nor returned the documents. The complainant suffered mental agony when the vehicle was intercepted by the police without documents. Hence sought to direct opposite parties to return R.C. book and N.O.C. to him and the failure to return the document amounts to deficiency of service. Further due to their deficiency of service they directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) for his mental agony as compensation of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses.
2) The 2nd opposite party filed the written version and the 1st opposite party adopted the same. The complainant is not maintainable under law. The complainant is irregular in payment of installment due as he used to repay the installments once in 3 months with accumulated arrears, to the collection agent. The complainant has not paid the “overdue charges” for the payments defaulted by him. Immediately after receipts of notices, the opposite parties informed to the complainant in person that the complainant is due to repay a sum of Rs.2250/- towards the loan amount itself and apart from that he has to pay the over due charges for returned cheques and and after such payment by the complainant the documents will be returned to the complainant. As such the complainant is due to pay a sum of Rs.15,752/- (Rupees fifteen thousand seven hundred and fifty two only) as on 09.05.2013.asper the balance sheet filed by them. Amounts claimed in the complainant excess. Therefore the opposite parties have not committed deficiency of service and prays to dismiss the complainant.
3.POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:
- Whether the opposite party 1 & 2 have committed deficiency in service?
- Whether is complainant is entitled to get return of RC (Registration Certificate) and NOC?
- To what relief the complainant is entitled in this complainant?
4.POINT: 1
The admitted case of the both the parties are that the complainant had purchased Maruti Omini Van with the financial assistance of the 1st opposite party for a sum of Rs.80,000/- and the complainant has agreed to repay the said loan amount of Rs.80,000/- in 36 equal installments at the rate of a Rs.3089/- per month.
5. According to the complainant he had paid the entire loan amount including the interest to the tune of Rs.1, 11,204/-, however the opposite parties have not returned the R.C. Book of the vehicle Maruti Amini Van Reg.No. TN 07 W 8389 with N.O.C in spite of the demand made by the complainant on several occasion. The opposite parties would rebut that the complainant had not paid the entire loan amount to the 1st opposite party and he is due to pay a sum of Rs.2250/- towards loan amount itself and apart from that he has to pay “over due charges ”i.e: cheque returned charges and other charges and as per the balance sheet as on 09.05.2013 the complainant is due to pay Rs.15752/- and unless he pays such amount the documents required to the complainant cannot be returned to him.
6. The Complainant borrowed a sum of Rs.80, 000/-as vehicle loan and agreeing to repay the amount in 36 monthly equal installments at the rate of Rs.3089/- per month. The loan was sanctioned on 9.02.2008 and he has to repay the amount with in a period of 3 years (36 months) i.e: on or before 9.02.2011. The complainant had paid all the 36 installments amounting to Rs.1, 11,204/- inclusive of interest under exhibit A1 & A2. This payment was not disputed by the opposite parties. Hence it is held that the complainant had paid the entire loan amount borrowed by him with interest under Ex A1 &A2.
7. The opposite party would dispute that the complainant has to pay a sum of Rs.2,250/- towards loan amount itself and he has to also pay overdue charges (ODC) banking charges and other charges as on 9.05.2013 in all amounting to a sum of Rs.15,752/- payable by the complainant as per the statement filed by them. The complainant repudiate the above argument that the above said charges never demanded by the opposite party from him and even if he delayed any payment the opposite party would have deducted ODC and other charges then and there when the installments were collected by the opposite party men. Admittedly some occasions the complainants paid two or three or even more installments were paid by him in one payment . Such a payments are delayed payments. While collecting installments in one payment the opposite parties should have informed to the complainant about the ODC payable by the complainant. No proof was filed by the opposite parties that they have demanded ODC or other charges from the complainant. It is already held that the complainant had paid the entire installments within the stipulated period of 36 months. Therefore the contention of the opposite party that the complainant is still due on the loan amount a sum of Rs.2, 250/- is not proved by the opposite parties and on the other hand it is further held that the complainant had discharged the entire loan amount with interest.
8. The opposite party filed Ex B1 & B3 statements to prove that the complainant is due to pay ODC charges and other charges. There is no evidence forth coming on behalf of the opposite party that the opposite party demanded ODC and other charges from the complainant before he filed the complainant in this Forum. In view of the circumstances stated above the opposite party cannot claim that still the complainant has to pay ODC and other charges.
9. After payment of entire principal loan amount with interest the complainant demanded to return the RC and issue NOC. However the opposite party have not returned the RC and issue of NOC. Hence the complainant as per Ex A3 letter to the opposite party demanded RC and NOC and for which the opposite party did not reply for the same. Having discharged the entire loan amount with interest within the agreed period, the opposite party ought to have returned the RC and issued NOC to him. Failure to return RC and issue NOC in respect of the complainant’s vehicle and also failed to reply to Ex A3 letter, it is held that the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service and accordingly the point is answered
.
POINT:2
10. Since the opposite party committed deficiency in service the complainant is entitled to get return of RC and NOC from the opposite parties.
POINT:3
11.Though the complainant discharged the entire loan with interest to the opposite parties, they have failed to return the RC and issue NOC and the same certainly caused mental agony to the complainant and therefore the complainant is entitled for compensation on this score besides litigation expenses.
12.In the result the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite parties to return the RC and issue NOC in respect of Omni vehicle TN 07 W 8389 to the complainant with in a period of 1month from the date of the order and further the opposite parties jointly and severely pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and also litigation expenses of Rs.2,000/-( Total amount Rs.12,000/-(Twelve thousand only)) to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of the order failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest till the date of the payment.
This order is dictated by me to the Steno Typist and directly typed by her and corrected and pronounced by me on this 22nd day of September 2014.
MEMBER – I PRESIDENT MEMBER – II
LIST OF DOCUMENTS ON THE SIDE OF THE COMPLAINANT:
1. Ex. A1 dated 09.02.2008 The loan sanction details.
2. Ex. A2 Dated 22.02.2009 Cash receipt Series.
3.Ex. A3/ Dated NIL Letter of the complainant.
4.Ex . A4 / Dated NIL Acknowledgement.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS ON THE SIDE OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:
1.Ex. B1/ Dated 07.05.2013 Accounts Statement
2.Ex. B2 / Dated NIL Application with hypothecation agreement
3.Ex. B3/ Dated 08.09.2014 Statement of Accounts.
MEMBER – I PRESIDENT MEMBER - II
