D.O.F:09/08/2016
D.O.O:12/07/2021
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.No.217/2016
Dated this, the 12th day of July 2021
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Mahalinga Pattali, S/o.Timmappa Patali, : Applicant/Complainant
D.No.2/163, Kollathadka house, Peruvai,
Nr.Govt.School Kollathadka, Bantwal Taluk,
D.K.District. 574 260.
(Adv. Ramakrishna Gatty,K, Kasaragod)
And
1 The Branch Manager, Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd, : Respondents/Opposite parties
1st Floor, Paradigam Plaza, A.B.Shetty Circle,
Mangalore. 575001.
2 The Managing Director, Shriram Trnasport Finance Co.Ltd,
Door.No.101-105, 1st Floor, B Wing, Shiv Chambers,
Sector-II, C.B.D, Belapur, Navi Mumbai-400614.
3 The Branch Manager, Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd,
2nd Floor, Aramana Arcade, Bank Road, Kasaragod.67121
ORDER
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complaint availed a vehicle loan of Rs. 505080/- from Opposite Party for the vehicle KA 32A 6534. Monthly installments is payable as agreed. The Opposite Party obtained signatures of the complainant in several blank forms and stamp papers and blank signed cheque leaf of Karnataka bank. The complainant submitted that he had paid Rs. 3,24,000/- complainant demanded statement of loan account to pay the dues in one time but Opposite Party demands Rs. 6,50,000/- with huge interest.
The Opposite Party attempted to seize the vehicle. Therefore complainant prays the relief of a direction to the Opposite Party to issue receipt for the amount collected, to direct Opposite Party, to settle loan account as per agreement terms and to issue clearance certificate, to direct Opposite Party to return the cheques and original documents and to direct Opposite Party to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation.
2. The Opposite Party filed its written version denying the allegations in the complainant. The Opposite Party submitted that the complaint is not maintainable at law since complainant is permanent resident of Karantaka, loan is obtained in Manglore, and vehicle is registered in Karnataka. The Opposite Party admitted the loan amount availed by the complainant. Complainant is liable to pay Rs. 4.19,183/- as on 01/09/2016. Therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Complainant filed chief affidavit and was cross examined as Pw1 and produced documents marked as Ext A1 to A3. Ext A1 is copy of R.C. Ext A2 loan receipts, Ext A3 authorisation letter. The Opposite Party produced loan agreement and statement of account. Documents marked as Ext B1 to B3. Ext B1 is the certified copy of EP 168/2015 of District Court Kasaragod, Ext B2 is CC of vakalath filed by complainant in EP, Ext B3 is statement of accounts.
4. Following points arise for considerations.
a) Whether there is territorial jurisdiction to maintain complaint under the Act.
b) Whether directions sought to issue loan clearance certificate can be
adjudicated by the commission.
c) Whether consumer complaint is maintainable? If so for what reliefs?
5. It is the case of the complainant that though vehicle finance is from Karnataka, Opposite Party has got branch office here and therefore this forum has got jurisdiction to decide the case. Thus it is held that forum has got jurisdiction to decide the case.
The Opposite Party admits the entire transaction is hire purchase loan transaction and nature of issues involved in the dispute are limited to furnishing statement of loan account to the complainant. Loan statement is already furnished.
6. With respect to the prayer of the complainant, keeping in view the settled position of law we are of the considered view that the directions sought for by the complainant to settle the loan account of complainant and to issue loan clearance certificate when loan is still pending admittedly do not fall within the ambit of sections 2(1) (d) and section 2 (1) d and section 2 (1) (0) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 and therefore cannot be termed as consumer disputes.
Even the Opposite Party admits that final award is passed by the arbitrator in the very same subject matter on 23/09/2014 and even execution proceedings are initiated, complainant appeared in EP through advocate. Complainant suppressed award, execution proceedings and feigned ignorance. Admittedly loan amount is still in due and hence not entitled to loan clearance certificate. No evidence forthcoming as to any proceedings pending challenging the award, complainant is entitled to challenge the same before the appropriate forum, CDRC herby hold that consumer is liable to be dismissed considering on its merits.
In view of the findings entered on the points raised we are of the considered view that arbitration award being passed, parties are free to challenge the same on its merits, complainant is not entitled to any relief in the case. Thus complaint is dismissed without costs.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1- copy of R.C
A2- Loan receipts
A3- Authorisation letter
B1- Certified copy of EP 168/15
B2- CC of vakalath filed by complainant in EP
B3- Statement of accounts.
Witness Examined
Pw1-Mohana.M
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Senior Superintendent
Ps/