Kerala

Wayanad

CC/09/141

K C Antony, Karikkassery House, Moopainad, Meppadi. PO, Wayanad. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The General Manager, Indusind Bank Ltd, 2401, General Thimmayya Road, Cantonment, Pune. - Opp.Party(s)

A J Antony

08 Apr 2010

ORDER


Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, WayanadConsumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Wayanad
CONSUMER CASE NO. 09 of 141
1. K C Antony, Karikkassery House, Moopainad, Meppadi. PO, Wayanad.Kerala ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. The General Manager, Indusind Bank Ltd, 2401, General Thimmayya Road, Cantonment, Pune.Kerala2. The Manager, Indusind Bank Ltd, Shalom Towers, 34/138D, Bye Pass North End, Edappally, KochiKochiKochiKerala3. Regional Transport Officer, Wayanad.WayanadWayanadKerala ...........Respondent(s)


For the Appellant :
For the Respondent :

Dated : 08 Apr 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

 

By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:


 

The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.


 

The complaint in brief is as follows:- The Complainant is the R.C owner of Tipper Lorry ( Cabking having No.KL 12C 3227). The vehicle was purchased availing loan from the 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties of Rs.4,60,000/-. The rate fixed for the loan amount was on flat rate of 4.27%. For the repayment of the loan, instalments were fixed and EMI was at the rate of Rs.11,500/- per month. The loan chart was issued to the Complainant. The termination of the loan amount was on 15.9.2009. The Complainant remitted the liable amount to the 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties much an earlier before the termination date. At the time of availing the loan, the Complainant also collected 10 signed blank cheques as a conditions pre-requisite for the issuance of loan. The 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties were not ready to issue the loan clearance certificate though the entire amount was paid by the Complainant. The request of the 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties to give back the blank and signed cheques and stamp paper were not considered by the Opposite Parties. When the Complainant demanded for the return of the documents on the clearance of the liability. The 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties demanded additional finance charges which is in no way responsible for the Complainant the 3rd Opposite Party is the registering authority. There may be an order directing the Opposite Party to:-

  1. Issue the loan clearance of the vehicle No. KL 12C 3227 as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act. In case of any failure of the 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties, the 3rd Opposite Party may be directed to cancel hire purchase endorsement in the R.C book.

  2. Return the 10 signed blank cheques and stamp paper to the complainant along with the compensation of Rs.50,000/- with cost.


 

2. The Opposite Parties filed version. The sum up of the version filed by the 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties are as follows. The purchase of the vehicle No. KL 12 C 3227 under hypothecation of Rs.4,60,000/- is admitted. The contentions of the Complainant such as the issuance of the loan chart was much delayed and the payment by the Complainant before the cut of date are also denied by the Opposite Parties. The Complainant had not paid the entire due amount before 15.09.2009, the vehicle purchased by the Complainant was in operation of commercial purpose engaging a driver. The other allegation of the Complainant such that the agents of the 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties approached the Complainant are incorrect. The Complainant himself executed on agreement abaid with the terms and conditions at the office of the Opposite Party in Kozhikode. The transaction was purely effected from Calicut and the complaint filed is beyond the limitation of jurisdiction of this Forum.


 

3. The complainant is a chronic defaulter and in such a circumstances the liability of the Complainant for additional finance still exist. The Opposite Parties did not collect blank and signed cheques. There is huge balance amount yet to be paid by the Complainant. The relief claimed by the Complainant is unsustainable. The complaint is to be dismissed with cost.


 

4. The sum up of the version filed by the 3rd Opposite Party is as follows:- The application for cancellation of hire purchase endorsement in the registration certificate is to be in form 35 duly signed by the agreement parties. In this case no application has been served so why the hire purchase endorsement is not cancelled.


 

5. The points in consideration are:-

  1. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

  2. Relief and cost.


 

6. Point No.1 and 2:- The evidence in this case consists of the proof affidavit of the Complainant and Opposite Parties. Exts.A1 to A10 and Ext. B1and B2 series are the documents considered in this case. The Complainant's contention is that Rs.4,60,000/- was availed for the purchase of the vehicle and the interest accrued was at 4.27% in flat rate. The principal amount and the interest are to be repaid in monthly instalments. The total amount liable to be paid including the principal and interest is Rs.5,38,568/- excluding the other charges. The interest calculated is of flat rate and the date of last instalments was on 21.09.2009. Ext.B1 shows that the Complainant remitted Rs.5,79,901/- that was before the date of termination of the instalments as per the chart. From the face of the documents produced it is to be considered that the Complainant remitted the principal amount and interest before the last date of the final instalments as per the chart. The non issuance of the clearance certificate to the Complainant is a deficiency in service. We are in the opinion that since interest was accrued in flat rate. The EMI decided by the Opposite Party is for the convenience of payment. The entire payment if made by the R.C owner before the last date of instalments, the Opposite Parties are liable to issue the clearance certificate for the cancellation of hire purchase endorsement. In this case the Complainant remitted Rs. 5,79,901/- before 15.9.2009. The vehicle is registered from 3rd Opposite Party.


 

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties are directed to issue the clearance certificate to the Complainant requesting to cancel the hire purchase endorsement. In case of any failure on the part of the 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties in the issuance of the clearance certificate the 3rd Opposite Party is directed to cancel the hire purchase endorsement on the application of the Complainant. The 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties are also liable to pay Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) towards cost and compensation. The Opposite Parties are directed to comply this within one month from the date of receiving this order.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 8th April 2010.

PRESIDENT: Sd/-


 


 

MEMBER : Sd/-


 


 

MEMBER : Sd/-

A P P E N D I X

Witnesses for the Complainant:

PW1. K.C. Antony. Complainant.

Witnesses for the Opposite Parties:

Nil.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1 Copy of Lawyer Notice. dt:23.09.2009.

A2. Reply Notice. dt:29.09.2009.

A3. Copy of Letter. dt:03.01.2009.

A4. Letter. dt:09.01.2009.


 

A5. Copy of Statement of Account.


 

A6 series Receipt.

(41 in numbers)


 

A7. Copy of Driving Licence.

A8. Copy of Receipts. dt:21.01.2000.

A8(a). Copy of Identity Card.

A9. Copy of Receipt. dt:01.12.2008.

A10. True Copy of Certificate of Registration.

 

Exhibit for the Opposite Parties:

B1. Settlement Amount As on 15.09.2009.

B2 series. Copy of Loan Agreement. dt:30.11.2005.

 


HONORABLE P Raveendran, MemberHONORABLE JUSTICE K GHEEVARGHESE, PRESIDENT ,