DATE OF FILING :11.8.2011
BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI
Dated this the 29th day of November, 2011
Present:
SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT
SMT.BINDHU SOMAN MEMBER
C.C No.174/2011
Between
Complainant : Rejimon S/o Thankappan,
Block No.404,
Kallar P.O.,
Thookkupalam,
Idukki District.
(By Adv: Sijimon K. Augustine)
And
Opposite Party : The Branch Manager,
Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd.,
Kattappana,
Kattappana P.O., Idukki District.
(By Adv: Babichen V. George)
O R D E R
SMT. BINDHU SOMAN (MEMBER)
The complainant availed a vehicle loan facility for an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- from the opposite party on January 2010. The complainant agreed to repay the loan amount in 48 monthly instalments of Rs.11,500/- each. At the time of availing loan, the complainant entrusted the NOC, duplicate key and cheque leaves of Idukki District Co-operative Bank Mundiyeruma Branch to the opposite party. Out of the 48 instalments the complainant remitted 7 instalments. Due to the illness of his mother, the complainant failed to remit the balance instalments in time. Meanwhile the complainant approached the opposite party on December 2010 with two instalments out of 4 instalments and at that time the opposite party had demanded Rs.5,000/- more than the instalment amount. The complainant's loan transactions come to end only on 2014. The complainant approached the opposite party several times personally and through mediators and agreed his willingness to remit the dues amount as instalments. But the opposite party had demanded about Rs.7,000/- more than the instalment amount. Moreover the opposite party had threatened the complainant that they could forcefully seize the vehicle. The complainant stated that he has no other means to live and purchased this vehicle in order to earn his livelihood. The complainant is ready to remit the instalments due if exorbitant rate of defaulted interest is avoided. The complainant alleged deficiency in service against the opposite party and approached this Forum.
(cont...2)
- 2 -
2. The opposite party filed written version. In this written version, the opposite party stated that they were not collected any document or duplicate key and NOC from the complainant. On 23.12.2009, the petitioner and one Mr.Ajeesh A.D entered into a loan-cum-hypothecation agreement with the opposite party. As per the terms of agreement, the opposite party had advanced a loan of Rs.3,53,577/- for the purchase of a vehicle. As per the agreement, the loan was sanctioned with 18.71% interest. The terms of loan is 4 year and the total number of instalments is 48. The opposite party stated that the instalment amount is Rs.11,670/-. They had further undertaken that they are liable to pay delayed payment charges also. As on 20.10.2011, the petitioner has to pay an amount of Rs.2,48,092/- as instalments, but only an amount of Rs.83,312/- has been paid as instalments. As per the statement of account, the opposite party had collected Rs.94,542/- from the complainant which includes service charges and insurance amount. The opposite party submitted that the complainant is chronic defaulter and he does not have any cause of action against this opposite party. The opposite party was acted only according to the terms of agreement. The complaint is filed without any bonafide and liable to be dismissed.
3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service from the part of the opposite party, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?
4. No oral evidence adduced by the complainant and Exts.P1 and P2(series) marked on the side of the complainant and oral testimony of DW1 and Exts.R1 to R3 marked on the side of the opposite party.
5. The POINT :- The complainant have no oral evidence and produced Exts.P1 and P2. Ext.P1 is the copy of the RC Book and Ext.P2 is the copy of the insurance certificate. The opposite party was examined as DW1. Ext.R1 is the power of attorney of the opposite party. Ext.R2 is the loan-cum-hypothecation agreement. The account statement of the complainant is marked as Ext.R3. The complainant had purchased the vehicle, Bajaj Tempo Traveller, for his livelihood. In the petition and in the affidavit, it is stated that no other way for his livelihood. He had paid 7 instalments out of 48 instalments. There are 11 instalments pending. The loan transactions ends on 2014. The complainant expressed his willingness to pay the defaulted instalments. The opposite party demanded Rs.70,000/-. The exorbitant rate of interest charged by the opposite party have no concrete evidence to show the rate of interest is legal. So we think that to regularise the loan transactions, the opposite party should charge only 12% interest for the due instalments. Ext.P2 is the insurance certificate of second year. The opposite party should consider Ext.P2 while settling the account.
(cont....3)
- 3 -
Hence the petition allowed. The opposite party is directed to settle the vehicle loan of the complainant's vehicle, Tempo Traveller bearing Reg.No.KL-6D-639, by calculating 12% interest for the due instalments for the period of due. The complainant should approach the opposite party within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this order, for settlement. The 2nd year insurance amount paid by the complainant directly to the Cholamandalam Insurance Company also should be considered at the time of settling the account.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of November, 2011
Sd/-
SMT. BINDHU SOMAN (MEMBER)
Sd/-
I agree SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)
APPENDIX
Depositions :
On the side of the Complainant :
Nil.
On the side of the Opposite Party :
DW1 - Raju Thomas.
Exhibits :
On the side of the Complainant :
Ext.P1 - Copy of the RC Book of the vehicle of the complainant.
Ext.P2(series) - Copy of the insurance certificate of the vehicle.
On the side of the Opposite Parties :
Ext.R1 - Copy of the power of attorney of the opposite party.
Ext.R2 - Copy of the loan-cum-hypothecation agreement.
Ext.R3 - Copy of the account statement of the complainant.
