Kerala

Kasaragod

CC/11/289

T.K.Mheamood - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Indusland Bank Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

07 May 2012

ORDER

 
Complaint Case No. CC/11/289
 
1. T.K.Mheamood
S/o.Abdulkahder.T.k. Indian IKnhabitant, R/at T.k.Manzil, Eniyapaddy, Kasaragod. 671223
Kasaragod
Kerala
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. The Manager, Indusland Bank Ltd
2nd floor madan's Arcade kanhangad, Hosdurg Taluk.
Kasaragod
Kerala
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'ABLE MR. K.T.Sidhiq PRESIDENT
 HONORABLE P.Ramadevi Member
 
PRESENT:
 
ORDER

D.o.F.31/10/11

D.o.O:7/5/12

 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

                             CC.No.289/2011

                        Dated this, the 07thth day of May  2012

PRESENT

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ                                 : PRESIDENT

SMT.RAMADEVI.P                       : MEMBER   

SMT.BEENA.K.G                             : MEMBER

 

 

T.K.Mehmood, S/o Abdul  Khader.T.K,

Indian Inhabitant, R/at  T.K.Manzil

 Eriyapaddy, Kasaragod.                                   :  Complainant     

(Adv.Shajid Kammadam,Kasaragod)

 

1.Manager, M/s IndusInd Bank Ltd,

   Madan’s Arcade, Kanhangad.

   Hosdurg, Kasaragod Dt,

2.Manager, M/s IndusInd Bank Ltd,

   Vehicle Finance division, ruby Tower,                                                                         

   Rly Station Road,Kannur                                        :  Opposite parties

(Adv. A.Manikandan, Kasaragod) 

 

 

 

                                                            O R D E R

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT

 

The averments of the complainant is as follows:

     Complainant availed a loan of Rs.630,000/- by executing an agreement on 25/10/07 with opposite party for  purchasing a sports utility vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-14/G 6886.  As per the agreement the said amount with 7.9%  flat rate interest ought to have been repaid in 48 equated monthly instalments (EMI’s).  The opposite party has fixed the agreement value  to Rs.8.59,080/- including Rs.30,000/- towards insurance premium for one year.  The complainant was very regular in repayment and after remitting Rs.8,28,580/- as on 5/9/11 he  expressed his willingness to settle the  account by paying the actual balance amount and demanded .  No dues certificate.  But opposite party demanded exorbitant amount and declined to issue  no objection certificate in contravention  of the circular  of Reserve Bank of India No.RBI/2006-2007/377, DBOD No.Dir BC 93/13.3.00/2006-2007 dtd 7/5/07.    The complainant received a registered notice dtd.2/9/11  demanding exorbitant amount @ 36%  overdue interest.  The act of opposite party amounts to deficiency in service.  Hence the  complaint.

   2.  According to opposite parties  complainant obtained vehicle loan after executing loan agreement.  As per the agreement   complainant has to repay the loan amount Rs. 630,000/- with interest charges Rs.1,99,080/- and insurance charges Rs.30,000/- totaling Rs.859080/-.  The agreement further stipulated that the complainant is bound to pay the EMI’s  on or before 21st of every month.  As per the  terms of agreement the complainant is liable to pay additional interest charges @36% for every no remittance/delayed remittance.  As on 13/2/2012 a sum of Rs.18913.24 is still outstanding  in the stock on  hire and  Rs.8039.60 is pending  in the account of additional interest and in total he is liable to pay Rs.26952.84.  Contrary to what has been agreed by the complainant under the agreement, the remittance of most of the EMI’s has been delayed.  Due to the said delay in remittance additional interest has accrued.  Hence there is no deficiency in the service.

3.   On the side of complainant the brother of the complainant Abdulla kunhi as P.A holder filed affidavit and Exts.A1 to A4 marked PW1 faced cross examination by the learned counsel for opposite party.  No evidence  adduced on the side of opposite party.  Both sides heard and documents perused.

4.  The points to be  settled in this complaint are:

1.  Whether  the opposite party is entitled to get the amount claimed by them

2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of  opposite party

3. What is the order  as to costs?

5.  For the sake of brevity points 1&2 are discussed together.

          Ext.A3 is the statement of account dtd.18/8/11 issued by opposite party to T.K.Mehmood.  As per that the overdue amount is shown as Rs.36563.24  future due as Rs.17180/- and the total in Rs.53743.24.  It is further seen from Ext.A3 that opposite party has not followed the law of appropriation  of interest while computing the additional interest.  According to opposite party they are  entitled to get 36% additional interest on every non-remittance/delayed remittance of EMI’s.  Had it been so as per the law of appropriation of interest  they ought to have collected additional interest as and when every delayed remittance is  made by the complainant.  As per law of appropriation of interest a payment  upon an interest  bearing  debt will be applied  a to the  interest in preference to  the principal and where the law allows interest on interest a payment should be applied first to discharge over due interest on interest and second to discharge interest and third to discharge principal.

6.         In this case as per Ext.A3 statement of account pertaining to the EMI remittance shows that the  opposite party has not followed  the said law.  Ignoring additional  interest had they collecting  subsequent monthly EMI only the presumption is that they have abandoned or waived the additional interest.  But keeping silence on additional interest till the remittance of last monthly instalment and  then demanding the said additional interest for the whole period is illegal and  definitely amounts to  deficiency in service.

7.                        Relief & costs:

 According to opposite party as on  13/2/2012 an amount of Rs.18913.24 is outstanding in the stock in hire and Rs.8039.60 is pending on account of additional interest.    Complainant has no case that he has remitted the entire hire amount.  Therefore the complainant is liable to pay  Rs.18913.24 which is outstanding  in his account.  But opposite party is not  entitled  for the additional interest Rs.8039.60.

             In the result complaint is allowed and  complainant is directed to remit Rs.18913.24 (rounded to   Rs.19000/-) to the opposite party within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order and on receipt of the said amount opposite party shall issue No objection certificate  pertaining to the vehicle bearing Reg. No. KL-14/G 6886.   If the opposite party is  not  issuing No objection Certificate  even after receipt of the amount then on application by the complainant with evidence of payment of Rs.19000/- to the opposite party necessary directions will be  issued to the concerned RTO to cancel the HP endorsement from the RC of vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-14/G6886. 

   However in the circumstances  there is no order as to costs.

Exts:

A1-Deed of power of attorney

A2-series- instalment receipts

A3-Statement of Account

A4-Notice issued by the OP

A5-circular issued by RB!

PW!-Abdullakunhi.K.A- power of attorney of complainant

 

 

MEMBER                                    MEMBER                            PRESIDENT

eva

 

 
 
[HON'ABLE MR. K.T.Sidhiq]
PRESIDENT
 
[HONORABLE P.Ramadevi]
Member

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.