DATE OF FILING : 3.3.2015
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI
Dated this the 30th day of March, 2017
Present :
SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT
SRI. BENNY. K. MEMBER
CC NO.80/2015
Between
Complainant : Varghese R.J., S/o. Joseph,
112, Radhabhavan,
Kadassikad, Arnackal P.O.,
Vandiperiyar, Idukki.
(By Adv: Shiji Joseph)
And
Opposite Party : The Manager,
IndusInd Bank Ltd.,
Kattappana Branch,
Kattappana, Idukki.
(By Adv: Eby Thomas)
O R D E R
SRI. BENNY. K. (MEMBER)
The complainant had availed a loan for Rs.2,80,000/- from the opposite party to purchase a Mahindra Maxima vehicle. The complainant had exchanged his Mahindra Alfa autorickshaw with the new vehicle. For the old vehicle, opposite party gave Rs.70,000/- in addition to the price of the old vehicle, Rs.18000/- was paid. The complainant had agreed to repay the loan in 48 monthly installments of Rs.8800/- each. One installment was paid in advance. Due to financial difficulties, the complainant could not paid some installments. While availing the loan, the complainant had entrusted the original R.C. Book, key insurance certificate, cheque leaves etc. with the opposite party.
On July, 2014, without any statutory notice, the opposite party repossessed the vehicle through the order of Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thodupuzha. Complainant approached the opposite party several times for getting back the vehicle, but opposite party demanding huge and exorbitant charges as penal interest. The complainant (cont....2)
- 2 -
is ready to take back the vehicle, if the opposite party is ready to settle the loan account with reasonable interest and cost. Without taking any steps to dispose the vehicle after taking possession and demanding huge penal interest, no way the complainant is liable to pay the same. Hence he approached before the Forum for getting a declaration that he is not liable to pay any amount towards the loan and for compensation.
In the written version filed by opposite party, they challenged the maintainability, since the Forum lacks jurisdiction to hear the complaint. The complainant was a chronic defaulter and the loan account became NPA and opposite party initiated the recovery proceedings under SARFAESI Act. The CJM Court, Thodupuzha, through vide order dated 2.7.2014, appointed an advocate commissioner to take physical possession of the vehicle bearing Reg. No.KL-37B-2657 from the complainant. Several times the opposite party bank requested the complainant to clear the dues pending for releasing the vehicle, but till date the complainant is not willing to pay the pending overdues. As on 30.7.2015, an amount of Rs.1,81,301/- is pending as overdues in this loan account. Total amount of Rs.2,89,093/- is outstanding towards principle loan amount and an amount of Rs.53,608.19/- towards additional interest. As per the terms of the loan agreement, complainant is liable to pay additional interest for defaulted and delayed payment.
The point 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 evidence consists only documentary evidence and Exts.P1 to P3 marked on the side of complainant.
The POINT :- The complainant had availed a loan of Rs.2,80,000/- from the opposite party to purchase a Mahindra Maxima vehicle. Ext.P1 is details of loan. He had agreed to repay the loan amount in 48 monthly installments of Rs.8800/- each. The complainant had exchanged his old Alfa autorickshaw with the new vehicle. For old vehicle, opposite party (cont....3)
- 3 -
gave Rs.70,000/-. In July, 2014, without any notice, opposite party repossessed the vehicle through the order of CJM Court, Thodupuzha. Complainant approached several times to the opposite party for getting back the vehicle, but opposite party is demanding huge penal interest for defaulted period. The complainant is ready to settle the loan account of the vehicle, if the opposite party is ready to reduce the penal interest and hidden and exorbitant penal charges. In the written version, opposite party has challenged the jurisdiction of the Forum to try the matter. The complainant was a chronic defaulter and his loan account became NPA. The opposite party initiated the recovery proceedings under SARFAESI Act. The CJM Court, Thodupuzha, through vide order dated 2.7.2014, appointed an advocate commissioner to take physical possession of the vehicle bearing Reg. No.KL-37B-2657.
We, the Forum is not going deeply into the merits of this case, since SARFAESI Act is initiated and the opposite party bank has repossessed the said vehicle through the order of Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thodupuzha.
Hence the Forum lacks jurisdiction to hear this matter and the petition dismissed.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of March, 2017
Sd/-
SRI. BENNY K., MEMBER
Sd/-
SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT
/ Forwarded by Order /
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
