Date of filing : 04-05-2011
Date of order : 28 -07-2011
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC. 104/2011
Dated this, the 28th day of July 2011
PRESENT
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER
SMT.K.G.BEENA : MEMBER
Mohammed Sherif, } Complainant
New Marhaba Manzil, Palakunnu,
Bekal.Po. Hosdurg Taluk, Kasaragod.Dt.
(Adv. George John Plamoottil, Kasaragod)
1. The Manager, Induslnd Bank Ltd, IInd Floor, } Opposite parties
Madan’s Arkade, Kanhangad, Hosdurg Taluk.
2. The Manager, Induslnd Bank Ltd, Vehicle
Finance Division, Ruby Tower,
Railway Station Road, Kannur.670001
(Ops 1 & 2 exparte)
O R D E R
SMT.K.G.BEENA, MEMBER
The gist of the complaint of Sri. Mohammed Sherif is that the complainant with the financial aid of opposite parties purchased “Maruthi Zen “car bearing Reg.No.KL 60/467 and entered in a hire purchase agreement with opposite party for an amount of `2,60,000/- with 5.6% per annum to be paid in 48 monthly instalments. The complainant was promptly repaying the loan. When the complainant was admitted in hospital due to paralysis some instalments were due. After the discharge from hospital, complainant approached opposite party to settle the entire loan amount, but they demanded an exhorbitant amount than the actual dues. Hence the complainant could not settle the loan amount. Meanwhile the 2nd opposite party approached the Sub Inspector of Police, Bekal with a request to seize the vehicle from the custody of the complainant. On 25-04-2011 also the men of opposite parties tried to seize the vehicle from the complainant. The opposite parties have retained the registration certificate of the vehicle. The complainant is ready to settle the loan by paying the exact amount to be paid by him legally. Claim of exhorbitant amount by the opposite parties caused serious mental agony and grievance to the complainant. Hence this complaint for necessary redressal.
2. Opposite parties are absent inspite of receipt of notice issued by registered post on 25-05-2011. Hence opposite parties had to be set exparte.
3. Complainant filed affidavit in lieu of Chief-examination. Exts A1 to A3 marked through PW1. Documents perused and heard the counsel of the complainant. Ext.A1 is the acknowledgement by opposite parties showing that original RC of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-60-467 was surrendered to them. Ext.A2 is the statement of account. Ext.A3 is the copy of Certificate of Registration. Ext.A2 shows the payment details of the complainant. Whether the opposite parties can legally keep the R.C with them as a security for the loan amount is also issue before us in the complaint. Ext.A2 shows that the complainant repaid the loan amount ill 25-05-2010 and he was ready to settle the amount which he legally bound to repay. But the opposite parties claimed exhorbitant amount. Retaining the RC of the vehicle as a security for the vehicle loan is illegal and nothing but exploitation of the consumer and it amounts to deficiency in service. As per Sec.51 of Motor Vehicles Act the hire purchase will be endorsed in the RC and thereby the right of the financier is well protected. Hence it is absolutely unnecessary to retain the RC. Moreover seizure or repossession of the vehicle from the custody of the complainant amounts to unfair trade practice and it is very barbarious. It is also exploitation and deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. The Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in a catena of decisions deprecated such re-possession.
It is the case of the complainant that the total amount to be repaid as per agreement is `3,18,240/- and he has repaid only `2,71,850/-. Admittedly there is a balance of `46,390/-. The complainant is liable to pay this amount to opposite parties with interest. As per Ext.A2 the last date of payment is 5-7-2010 that means the complainant has not paid the amount in time. Therefore the opposite parties are entitled for interest for the said amount in a conscionable rate. Only on payment of the said amount with interest he is entitled for HP termination letter and no objection certificate. Therefore we direct the complainant to pay `46,390/- with interest at the rate of 15% per annum from 5-7-2010 to till date of payment. On receipt of the said amount opposite parties shall return the original RC which they illegally retained with duplicate key and No Objection Certificate for canceling the HP endorsement favouring opposite parties. In the event of Non-compliance of the above direction necessary direction will be issued to the concerned RTA to issue duplicate RC after anceling the HP endorsement favouring the opposite party on application by the complainant with the evidence of payment `46,390/- with interest at the rate of 15% from 5-7-2010 to till date of payment to the opposite parties.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts.
A1. Acknowledgement .
A2. Statement of Account as on 05-03-2011.
A3. Photocopy of RC.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
Pj/
