CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Present:
Sri. Bose Augustine, President
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
Smt. Renu P. Gopalan, Member
CC No. 24/2011
Friday, the 11th day of July, 2014
Petitioner : Gopakumar M.P.
Madappallil House,
Ettumanoor P.O.
Kottayam.
(Adv. Rayin K.R.)
Vs.
Opposite Party : Branch Manager,
Shri Ram Transport,
Finance Co. Ltd.
Geetha Commercial Complex,
Near YWCA,
M.C. Road, Kottayam.
(Adv. R. Ajith)
O R D E R
Sri. Bose Augustine, President
The case of the complainant filed on 25/01/2011 is as follows.
The complainant is the owner of a truck bearing Reg. No. KL-05/Y3123, and for purchasing the vehicle, he availed a vehicle loan from the ICICI Bank, Kottayam branch. According to the complainant, the 2 EMIS become due and on believing the representations made by the collection agent of ICICI Bank, he availed a refinance loan for Rs.4,35,000/- from the opposite party. According to the complainant, at the time of availing the loan, opposite party’s staff made him believed the representation stated that the interest of the loan is 10.5% and the EMI is Rs.15,600/- for 36 installments. The opposite parties collected the R.C. book, insurance and tax token of the vehicle. The opposite parties also collected Rs.2,000/- as documentation charges. According to the complainant, opposite parties obtained signature on a printed format, stamp paper, printed book and blank paper on revenue stamp. And also opposite parties collected signed blank cheque leaves of SBT bearing No. 022403, 022404, 022405, 022406 of the complainant and cheque leaves of SBT bearing No. 990864, 990865, 990867 of guarantor. According to complainant, on 21/11/2010, the opposite party sent a letter demanding Rs.1,720/-. Then complainant, had approached the opposite party and demanded the schedule of repayment and EMI amount, but they did not issue the repayment schedule and they demanded of Rs.1,720/-. According to the complainant, the opposite party threatened that they would file case against the complaint, if he could not remit the amount of Rs.17,800/- as EMI. According to the complainant, the act of opposite party amounts to unfair trade practice. Hence this complaint.
Opposite party filed version contenting that, the complaint is not maintainable. According to the opposite party, complainant availed a refinance loan for his vehicle for Rs.4,35,040, and complainant and guarantor executed a loan cum hypothecation agreement on 30/10/2010. As per the terms of agreement, they agreed to repay the loan amount of Rs.4,35,040 along with interest at the rate of 15.403% in 36 monthly installment starting from 05/12/2010. And also agreed to pay additional 36% in case of delayed payment of installments. According to the opposite party, after availing the loan complainant closed his loan account with ICIC Bank and submitted an application to the RTO Office, Kottayam along with RC book of the vehicle for lifting the hypothecation of ICICI Bank and for endorsing the hypothecation of opposite party. According to the opposite party, complainant never entrusted the RC book to the opposite party after endorsing the hypothecation. According to opposite party, they had not collected any documents such as blank signed cheques leaves, blank revenue stamp affixed white paper, copy of the title deed, copy of the tax receipt, RC book, insurance certificate and tax token of the vehicle from the complainant. The vehicle records are necessary documents, which are to be kept in the vehicle for verification of the authorities. According to the opposite party, the complainant signed the loan argument after understanding the all terms and conditions of loan agreement. And there is no unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party. And they pray for dismissal of the complaint with their cost.
Points for Considerations are-
- Complaint is maintainable or not?
- Whether there is any unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party?
- Reliefs and costs?
Evidence in this case consists of the affidavits of both sides and Ext. A1
to A4 documents from the side of complainant. And Ext.B1 document from the side of opposite party. Opposite party filed argument note.
Point No.1
Complainant filed this complaint alleged unfair trade practice. The relief sought by the complainant is for returning of the R.C. book of the vehicle, which is being hypothecated with the opposite party and also he prayed for refixing the loan with 10.5% interest. From Ext.A4, order produced by the complainant, it can be seen that an arbitration case is pending. Further opposite party submitted that in respect of the said loan transaction an arbitration award is passed andopposite party, they filed a case before the Additional District Court, Kottayam as OP (Arb)117/12 for realizing the amount due by the complainant in the same matter and the property of the complainant was attached. In our view, as per Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Since, the arbitrator had passed the award, in our view, this complaint will not lie. The complainant has got the opportunity to sought the relief claimed in this complaint before the arbitrator. On the light of award passed by the arbitrator, without set aside the said award, this complaint is not maintainable. So Point No.1 is find accordingly.
Point No.2 & 3
In view of findings in Point No.1 complaint is dismissed. No cost is ordered.
Sri. Bose Augustine, President Sd/-
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
Smt. Renu P. Gopalan, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Documents from the side of petitioner
Ext.A1 : Letter dtd. 08/11/2010 from opposite party.
Ext.A2 : Photocopy of FORM – 34
Ext.A3 : Photocopy of FORM – 34
Ext.A4 : Copy of Order in IA No. 227/2011 in AC No.769/11 from Arbitral
Tribunal
Documents from the side of opposite party
Ext. B1 : Loan cum hypothecation agreement for Rs.4,35,040/- dtd. 30/10/10
By Order
Senior Superintendent
