Kerala

Idukki

CC/259/2017

Sabu T K - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager Kotak Mahindra Finance Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

29 Jun 2018

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
IDUKKI
 
Complaint Case No. CC/259/2017
( Date of Filing : 07 Dec 2017 )
 
1. Sabu T K
Thudiyamplackal House,Ezukumvayal P O
Idukki
Kerala
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. The Manager Kotak Mahindra Finance Ltd
4th floor Thadikkaran centre Palarivattom kochi
Idukki
Kerala
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. S Gopakumar PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. Benny K MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 29 Jun 2018
Final Order / Judgement

DATE OF FILING :07/12/17

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 29th day of June 2018

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

SRI. BENNY. K. MEMBER

CC NO. 259/2017

Between

Complainant : Sabu T.K.,

Thundiyamplackal House,

Ezhukumvayal P.O.,

Nedumkandam,

Idukki District – 685 553.

(By Adv: Vikraman Nair N.G.)

And

Opposite Party : 1 . The Manager,

Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd.,

4th Floor, Thadikkaran Centre,

Palarivattam, Kochi- 682 025.

2 . Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd.,

Kotak Infinity, 6th Floor,

Building No.21, Infinity Park,

Off Western Express Highway,

General A K Vaidya Marg, Malad (E),

Mumbai – 400 097.

O R D E R

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)

 

The case of the complainant is that,

 

Complainant had purchased a Maruthi Alto Car by availing a vehicle loan of Rs.2 Lakhs from opposite parties finance company on 31/10/13. As per the hire purchase agreement complainant has to repay an amount of Rs.254128/- including interest in 48 instalment. At the time of availing the loan complainant paid an amount of Rs.5000/- to the opposite parties as advance and also entrusted his cheque leaf and tax receipt of his landed property. The EMI was started on 01/12/13 onwards. The complainant repaid the EMI till September 2016. But due to the demonetization policy of the Central Government, as per the direction of the Central Government, the opposite

(Cont....2)

-2-

 

parties bank stopped the collection of loan instalments. Thereafter the EMI was regularly collected from the complainant by the agent of the opposite parties and the complainant remitted the entire amount to the vehicle loan within the stipulated period as per the loan agreement. Complainant further stated that after paying the last EMI on 01/10/17, he requested for the issuance of non liability certificate to the opposite parties. But even after several request opposite parties failed to issue this certificate. Instead of issuing non liability certificate opposite parties issued a notice to the complainant demanding Rs.30,000/- for issuing the Non-Liability Certificate. Complainant further contented that after receiving the entire loan amount as agreed, the demanding of more money is a gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence the complainant constrained to file this complaint for getting the relief such as to direct the opposite parties to withdraw from forcible possession of the vehicle, having Reg. No.KL/69/1095 and also direct the opposite parties to issue the Non-Liability Certificate along with the cheque leafs and tax receipt which was entrusted to them by the complainant along with cost and compensation.

 

Upon notice opposite parties entered appearance through counsel. But even after sufficient chances were given opposite parties failed to file vakkalath or written version. Hence opposite parties set ex parte.

 

Evidence adduced by the complainant by way of documents and were marked as Ext.P1 and Ext.P2. Ext.P1 is the loan account statement and Ext.P2 is the copy of RC book.

 

Heard in detail.

 

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:- On going through the evidence on record and the averment in the complaint, the Forum is of a considered view that none of the averments are challenged by the opposite parties. Since the version of the complainant is unchallenged the Forum allowed the prayers of the complainant as a whole.

(Cont....3)

-3-

Hence complaint allowed. Forum direct the opposite parties to close the loan account of the complainant which is discussed in the complaint and issue Non-Liability Certificate of the vehicle bearing Reg. No.KL/69/1095 along with the documents which was entrusted by the complainant as security and also direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.3000/- to the complainant as litigation cost, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which this amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default till the realization

 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of June, 2018.

 

Sd/-

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

SRI. BENNY. K. (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 - The loan account statement

Ext.P2 - The copy of RC book

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

 

Forwarded by Order,

 

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. S Gopakumar]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MR. Benny K]
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.