BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PRESENT
SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER
C.C. No. 101/2009 Filed on 11.05.2009
Dated : 15.12.2010
Complainant:
S. Sasikumaran Nair, S/o Sankara Pillai, residing at Ottukal Road, Kaithamukku, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By adv. G.T. Pradeep)
Opposite parties:
The Citi Bank, N.A, Ernakulam.
The Citi Bank, Branch Office, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By adv. R. Suja)
This O.P having been heard on 30.10.2010, the Forum on 15.12.2010 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER
Complainant purchased a Hyundai Santro Car bearing Reg. No. KL-01 V-4229 after availing a loan of Rs. 2,49,000/- from the opposite party by loan No. A4A-033-5282006. The term of loan was 48 months and the first installment was paid in cash. As stated supra the total period of installment was 48 months @ Rs. 6,874/- each. The complainant issued 47 cheques and all the cheques were duly honoured except on two occasions for which the complainant paid the above amount in cash. Thus the entire loan amount was paid on 01.04.2005. the opposite party collected the original key of the car from the complainant while sanctioning the loan. As the complainant had remitted all the loan amount on 01.04.2005, the complainant was demanding orally to the representative of the opposite party to return the original key and the certificate of closure of loan in order to cancel the hypothecation endorsement in the Registration Certificate. Even though the representative of the opposite party assured a prompt response, nothing was materialized. So the complainant by letter dated 02.10.2007 requested for the issuance of closure certificate from the opposite party. As there was little response, the complainant sent a reminder letter dated 24.09.2008. But in the meanwhile complainant got an advocate notice dated 21.05.2008 requesting for a conciliation as the opposite party alleges that the complainant yet to pay Rs. 17,067.95. For the above notice the complainant sent reply on 17.06.2008 stating that the demand is unfounded and no amount is due from the complainant. Thereafter there was no response from the opposite party hitherto. In fact the complainant owe no amount to the opposite party and the opposite party illegally and without any basis not issuing the certificate of closure and not returning the original key of the vehicle. The complainant alleges that the actions of the opposite party amount to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice as defined under Consumer Protection Act.
The opposite parties in this case are the City Bank and its branch office. They have filed version. The main contention of the opposite parties are that they had never had a branch at Thiruvananthapuram. All the transactions pertaining to the instant case were happened through or at the Ernakulam branch of City Bank. They further contended that the complainant has not paid the entire loan amount. As per the loan agreement between the complainant and 1st opposite party, the complainant is liable to pay the penal interest and other charges pertaining to any cheque bounces or delayed payments etc. The cheques given by the complainant towards the repayment of the loan were dishonoured at several instances and caused for charging penal interest and other charges connected thereto. The cheques were bounced in the year 2002 and 2003. After bouncing of the cheques as aforementioned the complainant paid only the amount fixed as the EMI. The cheque bouncing charges and other penal interest remained unpaid. These amounts were kept pending in the loan account as payable to the 1st opposite party from 2002 onwards. The complainant is silent about these aspects which are very much material for the just decision in the matter. As the complainant is liable to pay the aforementioned amounts towards the loan account, the question of “closure certificate” as mentioned in the complaint does not arise at all. The opposite parties further submit that the 1st opposite party bank has not resorted to any illegal actions in the instant matter. The opposite party bank has initiated actions legally by sending lawyer notice for getting the actual amount due to the bank till that date, for which the opposite party bank is legally entitled to. The complainant is liable to pay the amount as shown in the aforementioned lawyer notice to the opposite party bank. No deficiency of service is attributable to the 1st opposite party bank. Hence the opposite parties pray for the dismissal of the complaint.
The complainant and opposite parties in this case filed proof affidavits and documents. Both parties were examined as PW1 and DW1.
The issues that arise for consideration are:-
Whether there has been deficiency in service or unfair trade practice occurred from the side of opposite parties?
Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs and costs?
Points (i) & (ii):- For purchasing a Hyundai Santro Car the complainant availed a loan of Rs. 2,49,000/- from the opposite parties. The term of loan was 48 installments @ Rs. 6,874/- each. Opposite party collected the original key of the car from the complainant while sanctioning the loan. As the complainant had remitted all the loan amount on 01.04.2005, the complainant was demanding orally to the opposite party to return the original key and the certificate of closure of loan in order to cancel the hypothecation endorsement in the registration certificate. The complainant alleges that even though the representative of the opposite party assured a prompt response, nothing was materialized. So the complainant by letter dated 02.10.2007 requested for the issuance of closure certificate from the opposite party. Copy of letter produced by the complainant is marked as Ext. P1. Ext. P3 is the returned acknowledgement card signed by the opposite party. But there was no response from the side of opposite party. The complainant sent a reminder letter dated 24.09.2008. But the complainant did not produce the copy of letter or acknowledgement card signed by the opposite party for the acceptance of the notice. Ext. P5 is the copy of letter dated 25.09.2008 issued by the complainant to the RTO, Thiruvananthapuram requesting for cancelling the hypothecation entry in the R.C of his vehicle. Thereafter the complainant received an advocate notice dated 21.05.2008 requesting for a conciliation as the opposite party alleges that the complainant has to pay Rs. 17,067.95, letter was marked as Ext. P2. For the above notice the complainant had sent reply on 17.06.2008 stating that the demand is unfounded and no amount is due from the complainant. The copy of reply notice was marked as Ext. P4 and it's postal receipt is marked as Ext. P6. Ext. P7 is the delivery receipt of the vehicle dated 06.06.2001. One of the main contentions of the opposite party is that they have no branch office in Thiruvananthapuram and therefore this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. Since the complainant has purchased the vehicle with the loan of opposite party whose office is in Thiruvananthapuram. At the time of cross examination the opposite party stated that “loan procedure അനുസരിച്ച് ഞങ്ങളാണ് direct ആയി dealer-ക്ക് cheque കൊടുക്കുന്നത്. ഈ കേസിനാസ്പദമായ vehicle-ന് ഞങ്ങള് നേരിട്ടാണ് 'ഹ്യൂണ്ടായിക്ക്' cheque കൊടുത്തത്”. Hence part of cause of action has been arisen within the jurisdiction of this Forum. The complainant purchased the vehicle from Hilton Hyundai's Thiruvananthapuram showroom. For the purchase of the above said vehicle the complainant availed a loan from the opposite party. Since a part of transaction has taken place at Thiruvananthapuram, this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.
The opposite party in this case filed statement and that document was marked as Ext. D1. As per this document total due is Rs. 16,621.47. In that document it is mentioned that no installment due. Principal due is Rs. 8,979.64 and total due is Rs. 16,621.47. As per this statement the opposite party charged huge amounts in various heads viz; interest, penal interest, other dues , Serv tax due, Educ cess due etc. for Rs. 8,979/- and thus the amount raised as Rs. 16,621.47. From this document we can see that 3 times the complainant's cheque bounced i,e; on 29.11.2002, 27.05.2003 and 30.03.2003. In this case at the time of cross examination the opposite party stated that “Loan period-ല് മൊത്തം 5 പ്രാവശ്യം cheque bounce ചെയ്തിട്ടുണ്ട്. അതില് 4-ഉം cheque amount-ഉം മറ്റു charge-ഉം കിട്ടിയിട്ടുണ്ട്. May 2003-ലെ cheque തുക കിട്ടിയിട്ടില്ല”. He further stated that “27.05.2003-ല് principal amount-ഉം bouncing charge-ഉം കൊടുക്കാനുണ്ടെന്ന് പറയുന്നതിനെ സംബന്ധിച്ച് 21.05.2008-ല് മാത്രമാണ് notice അയയ്ക്കുന്നതെന്ന് പറയുന്നു. ആയത് ശരിയാണ്.” He further stated that “31.05.2005 മുതല് എന്തെങ്കിലും തുക കിട്ടാനുണ്ടെങ്കില് ആയത് പരാതിക്കാരനില് നിന്നും recover ചെയ്യാന് 3 വര്ഷത്തിനകം യാതൊരു നടപടിയും എടുത്തിട്ടില്ലായെന്നു പറയുന്നു. ശരിയാണ്.” In this case the complainant argued that he had paid the entire amount within time, i.e, on 01.04.2005. But the opposite party stated that there is one installment due from the side of complainant. The opposite party in this case admitted that the installment period ends in April 2005. But they demanded the dues only on 21.05.2008 by Ext. P2, i.e; after the lapse of 3 years, i.e; after the debt became time barred. Hence the opposite parties have no right to claim that amount from the complainant as per law. The opposite parties in this case denied the demand of the complainant to return the key and the certificate of closure of loan unnecessarily and the opposite parties also dragged the complainant to file this case for the redressal of his grievance. From the evidences and documents of both the parties, we find that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the side of opposite party. Hence the complaint is allowed.
In the result, the 1st opposite party is directed to issue a closure certificate of loan No. A4A-033-5282006 enabling the complainant to cancel the hypothecation endorsement in the registration certificate of the vehicle bearing Reg. No. KL-01V-4229 and also to return the original key of the vehicle to the complainant. For the redressal of the mental agony the 1st opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as costs of the proceedings to the
complainant. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of the order. Thereafter 9% annual interest shall be paid for the entire amount.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 15th day of December 2010.
BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
jb
C.C. No. 101/2009
APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :
PW1 - S. Sasikumaran Nair
II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :
P1 - Copy of letter produced by the complainant
P2 - Advocate notice dated 21.05.2008
P3 - Acknowledgement card addressed to opposite party.
P4 - Copy of reply notice dated 17.06.2008
P5 - Copy of letter dated 25.09.2008
P6 - Postal receipt dated 17.06.2008
P7 - Delivery receipt of the vehicle dated 06.06.2001
III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :
DW1 - Ramesh
IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :
D1 - Account statement from 30.04.2001 to 21.07.2010
PRESIDENT
jb
