BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PRESENT
SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
SMT. R. SATHI : MEMBER
SMT. LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
C.C. No. 244/2010 Filed on 05.08.2010
Dated : 16.08.2013
Complainant:
S. Rahim, Shibu Manzil, Vadakkan Mainagappalli P.O, Karunagapppalli.
(By adv. R. Narayan)
Opposite parties:
1. The Finance Manager, Tata Motors Ltd., Thiruvananthapuram-695 001.
2. Tata Motor Finance, DGP House 4th Floor, Old Prabhadevi Road, Mumbai-400 025.
(By adv. N.U. Nampoothiri)
This C.C having been taken as heard on 25.07.2013, the Forum on 16.08.2013 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. LIJU B. NAIR: MEMBER
Case of the complainant is as follows: On 15.03.2004 complainant availed a loan of Rs. 3,43,200/- from the opposite parties and purchased a Tata Indica Diesel car from the Koyenco Tata Showroom at Ernakulam for use as a tourist car as a means of self employment. Complainant was supposed to repay the amount @ Rs. 7,150/- per month. The opposite parties realized the afore mentioned amounts from his account at SBT, Karunagappally branch as per the terms specified. A balance amount of Rs. 25,000/- was paid by the complainant directly at the office of the opposite party in Trivandrum. Thus complainant had closed the entire loan amounts due to the opposite parties. From that day onwards complainant was requesting the opposite parties to issue the NOC and to return the RC Book, duplicate key, blank cheques etc. issued by him. Complainant was informed that the same would be returned within ten days, as soon as the same is received from Mumbai head office. However, there has been inordinate delay in returning these documents to him. Inspite of repeated queries, opposite parties raised some flimsy excuse or another and kept the complainant waiting to get the original documents. Without the original documents, complainant was not in a position to ply his vehicle across the road and his desire of earning livelihood using this vehicle as a tourist car has thus been shattered. On 09.02.2010 complainant had sent a notice to the opposite parties demanding return of the documents, the remaining unencashed blank cheques and the duplicate keys. An official of the opposite parties called him up and promised that everything will be settled by May 31st, 2010. Inspite of the said promise nothing has been done. Hence the complaint has been filed to get back the R.C Book, NOC, unencashed cheque leaves, duplicate key etc. together with an amount of Rs. 5,40,000/- being the loss caused to him due to the non-plying of car and an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for mental pain and agony.
Opposite parties submit that Tata Motors Finance Ltd., formerly known as TML Financial Services Ltd., a company duly incorporated under Sec. 45-IA of the RBI Act 1934, as a systematically important Non-Banking Finance company having its registered office at Nanavati Mahalaya, 3rd floor, 18, Homi Mody Street, Mumbai-400 001 is a renowned “Asset Finance Company” across India and is widely acclaimed for its reputation and service. These opposite parties have carved a niche for themselves in the sector of vehicle finance across the country. The borrower of the loan and the lender are bound by the terms and conditions applicable for the loan stipulated under the agreement. The complainant in this instant case has been a chronic defaulter of the installments. The complainant has defaulted in repayments within the prescribed time of the installment No. 3,5,9,19,39, and 40. Further the cheques issued by the complainant towards the repayment of the loan have been dishonoured various times due to insufficient funds in the account, which proves the malafide conduct on part of the complainant. It is quite evident that the complainant himself has failed to confine to the terms and conditions of the said agreement. The complainant as borrower and Mrs. Nasheera as guarantor entered into a loan cum hypothecation cum guarantee agreement bearing No. 20834679 dated 15.03.2004 with the opposite parties for availing a financial assistance of Rs. 2,50,000/-. The complainant purchased a vehicle Indica Taxi bearing registration No. KL 02 R 9275 on 15.03.2004 for a sum of Rs. 3,33,400/- for which the initial amount of Rs. 83,400/- was paid by the complainant and the remaining amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- was finance by these opposite parties. In the said agreement the complainant has agreed to pay finance charges of Rs. 72,200/-. The opposite parties clarify that the complainant has further opted for availing financial assistance for insurance of the vehicle for a period of three years for which the complainant has agreed to pay Rs. 21,000/-. As per the contract value of the said loan, the complainant was liable to pay Rs. 3,43,200/- subject to other terms and conditions. The complainant has agreed to pay the loan amount on 15th of every month in 48 equal monthly installments @ Rs. 7,150/-. As per the receipt information maintained by these opposite parties the complainant has paid Rs. 3,65,901/- as on 02.12.2010. However it may be elucidated that the complainant has defaulted in repayment of the installment No. 3,5,9,19,39 and 40 which has resulted in the addition of the overdue charges on the total amount. The opposite parties further state that as on 02.12.2010, there is no overdue installment however the complainant is liable to pay the accrued overdue charges of Rs. 7,090.26. the complainant has himself agreed to pay the overdue charges under the terms and conditions of the agreement. Hence these opposite parties are not liable to issue NOC unless the dues amount is paid by the complainant. These opposite parties deny that they have promised to send the NOC, RC Book, keys of the vehicle and the remaining cheque leaves to the complainant. These opposite parties as a policy do not keep the original RC book or the keys of the vehicle. Complainant being the owner of the said vehicle has himself registered the vehicle and obtained the registration book from the appropriate authorities. The complainant himself has provided a copy of the RC Book to these opposite parties as agreed under the terms and conditions of the said agreement. It is germane to mention here that the complainant is plying the vehicle from the date of purchase, i.e; 15.03.2004 without any issues but as of now, the complainant has alleged that in absence of the registration papers he is unable to take put the vehicle on the street which itself proves the baseless and malafide intention of the complainant. Hence it is evident that the allegation of monetary loss to the complainant by these opposite parties is false. The complainant has failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the said agreement and did not clear the dues and his several cheques issued towards the repayment of the loan amount were dishonoured. That complainant is not entitled to any of the claims from these opposite parties and the instant complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Points raised for consideration are:-
(i) Whether the complaint is maintainable before this Forum?
(ii) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
(iii) Whether the complainant is eligible for reliefs as prayed for?
(iv) Cost and compensation if any.
Both parties filed affidavit to support their case. Documents were also produced. Exts. P1 to P5 were complainant’s documents and Exts. D1 to D6 were produced from the side of the opposite party.
Point (i):- Opposite party raised the question of maintainability as a preliminary issue as the complaint filed by the complainant does not fall within the definition of a ‘consumer dispute’ under the Consumer Protection Act as there is neither any unfair trade practice adopted nor deficiency in service being established against the opposite parties. Here, the complainant came before us alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, in not issuing the NOC, duplicate key etc. after repayment of the entire loan amount. Repayment is admitted by the opposite parties also. Non-issuance of NOC after repayment of the loan, amounts to deficiency in service, which will come under the title ‘consumer dispute’ and the complaint is maintainable before this Forum.
Points (ii) to (iv):- Perused the documents produced by both sides. Going through the same we are also convinced that the entire loan amount stands repaid. Dispute is regarding the amount charged as overdue charges (ODC) for Rs. 7,090.26. As per the copy of rejected receipts marked as Ext. D1, 6 receipts were returned. Remitting a bulk amount towards the end also points to default in repayments. Here the question arises, whether the complainant is liable to pay the overdue charges as claimed by the opposite party. On perusal of the agreement produced by the opposite party, which is signed by both parties, and on going through the schedule attached to it, which is also signed by the parties, Sl. No. 15, clearly states that “charges on dishonour of cheques at Rs. 200/- per dishonour per cheque”. So here opposite party produced evidence to show that 6 cheques were dishonoured as per rejected receipts. This was not challenged by the complainant also. So as per the schedule and terms and conditions agreed between the parties, opposite party can claim only 200x6, i.e; Rs. 1,200/- as ODC. On receiving this amount, opposite party is bound to give him NOC and other documents in their custody to the complainant. Regarding R.C Book, opposite party clearly stated in their affidavit that only a copy of registration certificate is given to them. Original R.C book is with the complainant as per Motor Vehicles Act 1988. This argument of the opposite party was not challenged by the complainant. So regarding registration certificate, what is stated in the affidavit of the opposite party stands unchallenged. Going through the facts and circumstances of the complaint, there is no order on cost and compensation.
In the result, complaint is allowed. Complainant is directed to remit Rs. 1,200/- as overdue charges within two weeks of receipt of this order. On receiving the same, opposite party is hereby directed to terminate the loan agreement as full and final settlement. Within two weeks of remittance of the said amount, NOC is to be issued to the complainant. Any other documents or unused cheques or duplicate key if any are to be returned to the complainant along with NOC. No order on cost and compensation.
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 16th day of August 2013.
Sd/-
LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
Sd/-
G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
Sd/-
R. SATHI : MEMBER
jb
C.C.No. 244/2010
APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:
NIL
II COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:
P1 - Copy of notice dated 09.02.2010 issued by complainant to O.P
P2 - Copy of receipt dated 29.03.2008 issued by opposite party
P3 - Copy of invoice-cum delivery receipt dated 15.03.2004
P4 - Copy of cheque dated 11.02.2005 for Rs. 14,300/- and two
blank cheque leaves.
P5 - Copy of letter dated 25.04.2004 issued by opposite party.
III OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:
NIL
IV OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:
D1 - Copy of Rejected Receipts as on 12.01.2011
D2 - Copy of agreement
D3 - Copy of Cardex I (Contract Details) as on 12.01.2011
D4 - Copy of Receipt Information as on 12.01.2011
D5 - Copy of Cardex II (Repayments) as on 12.01.2011
D6 - Copy of R.C Book
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
jb
