DATE OF FILING :29/04/2016 

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the  22nd day of February  2019

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

           SMT.ASAMOL P. MEMBER

CC NO. 142/2016

Between

Complainant       :    Johnson Poulose,

                                                                              Valiyaparambil House,

                                                                              Rajakandam P.O., Mangalampady, 

                                                                               Vandanmedu Village,

                                                                              Idukki District – 685 551.

(By Adv: Vikraman Nair N.G.)

And

Opposite Party                                          :   1 . Eros Auto Mobiles,

                                                                              Vellayamkudy Road,

                                                                              Kattappana P.O.,

                                                                              Represented by its Manager

                                                                              (By Adv: Gem Korason)

                                                                         2 . M/s Baja Fianance Ltd.,

                                                                              C/o Bajaj Auto Limited,

                                                                              Akrudi, Pune – 411 035.

(By Adv: Sijimon K.Augustine)

 

O R D E R

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)

 

The case  of the complainant is that,  

 

Complainant  availed a vehicle loan from the second opposite party bank of Rs.1,70,000/- agreed to repay it with 42 monthly instalments @ Rs.5672/-.  He paid 33 instalments regularly, and while on payment of 34th instalments directly, the opposite party denied to accept it and demanded Rs.2000/- as outstanding amount of his old vehicle loan.  Till date the opposite parties are not receiving the loan instalments and now 5 instalments are pending.  Denying the receipt of loan instalment by making false allegation is deficiency in  service.  While so on 04/01/16 an arbitration notice received by the complainant to appear before the Arbitrator on 24/02/16 at Pune in Maharashtra. Complainant further submitted that practically it is impossible to

                                                                                                                           (Cont....2)

-2-

attend this.  Now the complainant is an urgent need of service repair of the vehicle and he came to know that the opposite parties are preparing to take forcible possession of the vehicle from his custody.  Hence the complainant filed this petition for directing the opposite parties to hand over the true and correct statement of account of the vehicle loan and direct them to accept the loan instalments from the complainant and further direct them to pay cost and compensation.

 

Upon notice opposite parties entered appearance and filed detailed reply version.  In their version the first opposite party contented that there is  no consumer relationship with the complainant, and they did not provide any loan for the complainant and the alleged loan transaction is between the complainant and the second opposite party.  As per the request of the complainant this opposite party was provided with a facility of remitting the loan instalments.  This opposite party did not reject any payment.  The complainant made default in paying an amount of Rs.5000/- to this opposite party towards the sale price of a second hand vehicle and keep away from his promise.  While the complainant approached the first opposite party for remitting the instalments, they demanded the said amount and the complainant on revenge of the said situation  had filed this false case.  The complainant is having option to remit the instalment to the second opposite party.  There is no loss for the complainant while this opposite party is sustaining heavy loss out of the act of the complainant.

 

In their reply version the second opposite party contented that the complainant grossly failed to abide by the terms and condition of the loan and as on August 2014, the complainant was in default of Rs.5,672/- towards instalment overdue, Rs.520/- towards other overdues along with future payable instalments.  But even on repeated requests and remainders by this opposite party the complainant had not taken any effort to regularise the loan account.  Constrained by the said attitude, this opposite party has affected vehicle verification cum demand notice for remitting the loan dues.  Further the second opposite party stated that in March 2015, the complainant was in default of Rs.11,344/- towards instalment dues and Rs.4,660/- towards other overdue along with Rs.96,424/- towards 17 further instalments.  But the complainant not taken any efforts to regularised the account.  After receipt of the demand notice dated 06/04/15, the complainant has remitted Rs.56,780/-

                                                                                                                           (Cont....3)

-3-

in different intervals.  Hence there is no act of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the part of the opposite party at any point of time.  The complainant himself is deficient from the agreed terms and conditions of the loan agreement by not making payments of loan instalment and is in default, hence the complaint itself is deserves to be dismissed on this mere ground itself, as a defaulter cannot be termed as consumer and should not be entertained.

 

Evidence adduced by the complainant by way of documents.  The document such as copy of receipt, copy of payment chart and copy of Arbitration notice produced by the complainant are marked as Ext.P1 to Ext.P3 respectively.  The loan statement of account produced by the opposite parties is marked as Ext.R1.

 

Heard both sides,

 

The point that arose for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?

 

The Point:- We have heard the counsel for both the parties and had perused the records.  It is an admitted fact that the complainant availed a vehicle loan from the second opposite party financier and committed some default.  On getting Ext.P3 notice from the Arbitrator, the complainant approached this Forum and filed this complaint.  As per the direction of the Forum complainant remitted an amount of Rs.51,120/- by way of 5 demand draft and the second opposite party received the DD from the Forum on 13/04/18.  As per the letter dated 19/03/18 the second opposite party offered a settlement of Rs.51,120/- and directed the complainant to remit the amount on or before 31/03/18.  At that time also, the DD's were before this Forum.  But unfortunately it is received by the opposite parties on 13/04/18.  It is not a default from the side of the complainant.    But thereafter also, the  opposite parties failed to issue the NOC and RC to the complainant till date.  Opposite parties has not a claim that any amount is pending in this loan account.  Hence the act of the opposite parties in delaying the issuance of NOC and RC of the vehicle, after the receipt of the entire loan amount is a gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

                                                                                                                           (Cont....4)

-4-

Hence on the basis of above discussion complaint allowed.  The second opposite party is directed to issue the NOC and RC of the vehicle having Reg.No KL/37B/4836 to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order along with an amount of Rs.5000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as litigation cost.

 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 22nd  day of February, 2019.

 

                                                                                                          Sd/-

                                                                                         SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)

                                                                                                          Sd/-

                                                                                      SMT.ASAMOL P.  (MEMBER)                                                                                 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                

APPENDIX

 

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

Nil

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1            - Copy of receipt

Ext.P2            - Copy of payment chart

Ext.P3         -  Copy of Arbitration notice

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Ext.R1      -  The loan statement of account 

 

 

                  Forwarded by Order,

 

 

                  SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT