IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 30th day of May 2023
Present: Sri.Manulal.V.S, President
Smt.Bindhu.R, Member
Sri.K.M.Anto, Member
CC No. 299/2021 (Filed on 16.12.2021)
Complainant : Jasmine K Mathew, Chairperson
Sydney Montissori Schools
Door No.1/649, Perumpaikkattusseri
Gandhinagar Post-686 006
Kottayam.
(By Adv.Jose J Cheruvil)
Vs
Opposite party : The Cholamandalam Investment and
Finance Company Limited
Thiruvananthapuram rep. by its
Branch Manager, The Cholamandalam
Investment and Finance Company Ltd
2nd Floor Kochuparambil Complex
Kanjikkuzhy, Muttambalam P.O
Kottayam-686 004.
(By Adv.R.Ajith)
O R D E R
Sri.K.M.Anto, Member
The complaint is filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
The brief of the complainant’s case is as follows:-
The complainant is the chairperson of the Sydney Montessori Schools, a group of pre-primary and daycare schools having Baby care, Babysit, Play Schools, and Kindergarten for her lively hood. The complainant had purchased four Tata Winger vehicles from Popular Mega Motors, Trivandrum. The complainant had availed a loan from the opposite party on 12/11/2015 for the purchase of the vehicles. The vehicles were registered as KL-01/BV-6873, KL-01/BV-6875, KL-01/BV-6842, KL-01/BV-6852. An amount of Rs.7,44,000/- was availed as loan for each vehicle. The complaint was regularly paying the EMIs for the vehicles. The conduct of the schools was stopped due to the Covid Pandemic and the payment of the installments became due for some time. On 11/12/2021 the officials of the opposite party demanded an amount of Five Lakhs immediately otherwise the vehicles should be surrendered. The officials of the opposite party informed that unless the amount demanded was not paid within 15/12/2021, all the vehicles would be seized and auctioned by the opposite party. The opposite party has no right to seize the vehicles illegally from the custody of the complainant. The demand made by the opposite party is huge without accounting all the payments made by the complainant. The opposite party had figured a liability of Rs.6,51,298/- even after the payment of Rs.34,13,381/- against a loan of Rs.29,76,000/-.
This complaint is filed for getting an order directing the opposite party to account all the amounts paid by the petitioner and not to seize the vehicles illegally by coercive means.
On admission of the complaint, copy of the complaint was duly served to the opposite party. The opposite party appeared and filed their version.
The version of the opposite party is as follows. The opposite party is a non-banking finance company and the Sydney Montessori School Trivandrum had availed a loan facility from the Trivandrum branch of the opposite party for the purchase of four Tata Winger vehicles for their business purpose. The averment that the conducting of the Sydney Montessori School is for the livelihood of the complainant is not correct. The officials of the opposite party never threatened the complainant. The opposite party has no intention to repossess the vehicles forcefully. The EMIs became due and the dispute was referred to the Arbitrator. The repayment of all four accounts tenure was expired by May 2021 and all the four accounts became NPA.
The complainant has no case that there is any deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. As per the terms of the loan agreement the complainant had agreed to pay 3% interest on delayed payments. The complainant is irregular in the repayment. The opposite party had credited the amount paid by the complainant school. The opposite party has no intention to repossess the vehicles by force. But the opposite party has every right to repossess the vehicle as per law. The complaint is filed to obstruct the recovery proceedings initiated by the opposite party.
The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked documents Exhibits A1 to A5. The opposite party filed proof affidavit and marked documents as Exhibits B1 to B4.
On the basis of the complaint, version of the opposite party and evidence adduced we would like to consider the following points.
- Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.
- If so, what are the reliefs and costs?
For the sake of Convenience, we would like to consider point No 1 and 2 together.
On going through the complaint, version of the opposite party and evidence adduced it is evident that the complainant had availed vehicle loans for an amount of Rs.7,44,000/- each for the four vehicles with Registration numbers KL-01-BV-6852, KL-01-BV-6842, KL-01-BV-6873 and Kl-01-BV-6875 on 12/11/2015.The tenure of the loan was 67 Months and the Loan period was from 10-11-2015 to 10-05-2021.
Ext A1 is the copy of registration certificate and Ext A2 is the copy of the trade mark certificate. Ext A3 series is the copy of Registration certificate of the four vehicles. The registered ownership of the vehicles KL.01.BV.6875 and KL.01.BV 6873 were changed to Sydney Montessori School, Door No.1-649, opposite Medical College, Gandhinagar P.O, Kottayam with effect from 12/06/2017.
Ext A4 is the copy of the loan account statement of the vehicle KL.01.BV6875 for the period from 06/12/2010 to 06/12/2021 issued by the opposite party.
Ext A5 series are the copies of the account statement of the complainant for the period for January 2020, December 2019, July 2019, January 2019, of the complainant issued by Dhana Laxmi Bank, Kottayam.
Ext B1 is the Statement of accounts of the Loan for the vehicle KL-01-BV-6852 as on 24/12/2022. Ext B2 is the statement of accounts of the loan for the vehicle KL-01-BV-6842 as on 24/12/2022. Ext B3 is the statement of accounts of the loan for the vehicle KL-01-Bv-6873 as on 24/12/2022 and Ext B4 is the statement of the Loan account for the vehicle KL.01.BV.6875 as on 24/12/2022.
On perusing the Ext B1 to B4 statement of accounts it is evident that the complainant had remitted 50 installments up to December 2019 and defaulted thereafter. Even though the complainant alleges that the amounts actually paid were not properly accounted, no evidence is adduced by the complainant to establish this contention.
On the basis of the above discussed findings, it is clear that the complainant failed to adduce evidence to prove deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party with cogent evidence. The complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complaint dismissed.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 30th day of May, 2023.
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member sd/-
Sri.Manulal.V.S, President sd/-
Smt.Bindhu.R, Member sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of c omplainant.
A1- Copy of the certificate of registration of Sydney Montissory school.
A2- Copy of the Additional representation to Form TM-01, dated 15.01.2009.
A3 series- Copy of the RC books of Sidney Montissory School (KL-01-BV 6875, KL-01-BV-6873, KL-01-BV-6852, and KL-01-BV-6842).
A4- Copy of the statement of account issued by Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd (from 06.12.2010 to 06.12.2021).
A5- Transaction details of Dhanlaxmi Bank, Kottayam branch .
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite parties
B1- Statement of accounts of the Loan for the vehicle KL-01-BV-6852 as on 24/12/2022
B2- Statement of accounts of the loan for the vehicle KL-01-BV-6842 as on 24/12/2022.
B3- Statement of accounts of the loan for the vehicle KL-01-Bv-6873 as on 24/12/2022.
B4- Statement of the Loan account for the vehicle KL.01.BV.6875 as on 24/12/2022.
By order
Assistant Registrar
