By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President,

1. Complainant availed a vehicle finance from first opposite party which was arranged through

second opposite party. Complainant executed an agreement running into several pages in blank form and also submitted blank cheque leaves and stamped receipts. Copy of the agreement was not handed over to complainant. As per the repayment chart given to him a sum of Rs.6,14,190/- was to repaid in 36 instalments. The date of last instalment is 31-3-2008. Complainant repaid the full amount and proper receipts were issued by opposite party. Thus complainant has repaid Rs.6,48,393/- much before the last due date. On request to issue the hire purchase termination letter. Opposite parties demanded Rs.68,000/- as additional hire charges. That complainant has paid rs.34,203/- in excess and is not liable to pay any further amount to opposite party. Hence this complaint.

2. First opposite party filed version admitting the transaction. It is stated that complainant did not remit the instalments within the time stipulated in the agreement and therefore he is liable to pay default charges and penal interest. The allegation that complainant paid Rs.34,203/- in excess is denied. That as per the statement of accounts as on 31-5-2006 an amount of Rs.59,876/- is still due from the complainant as overdue charges. It is stated that the complainant is not entitled to receive the clearance certificate unless he discharges the above liability. That complainant is therefore not entitled to any reliefs.

3. Though second opposite party entered appearance through counsel no version was filed on behalf of second opposite party. Supplemental third opposite party filed version directly. It is stated by third opposite party that complainant is the registered owner of the vehicle and that the dispute is one between the complainant and the financier only.

4. Evidence consists of the proof affidavit filed by complainant and Ext.A1 series marked for him. Opposite party filed counter affidavit and Exts.B1 and B2 marked for first opposite party.

5. Complainant is aggrieved by the non-issuance of hire purchase termination letter even after repayment of loan. It is his case that he has repaid an excess amount of Rs.34,203/- and even then opposite party is demanding Rs.68,000/- towards additional finance charges.

6. The complaint is resisted by opposite party stating that no excess amount has been collected. It is affirmed by opposite party that complainant did not remit the instalments within the stipulated time and therefore has to pay additional hire charges. That an amount of Rs.59,876/- is still due as on 31-5-2006.

7. On perusal of Ext.B2 which is account statement it is seen that complainant repaid an excess amount of Rs.2,203/- towards the loan. An amount of Rs.62,080/- is charged by opposite party as insurance expenses. After deducting Rs.2,203/- from the above insurance expenses opposite party is presently claiming Rs.59,876/- as over due charges. There is absolutely no evidence adduced by opposite parry to explain what is the insurance expense accounted by opposite party in Ext.B2. There is no pleadings to the effect that complainant is liable to pay insurance charges. What is pleaded and affirmed by opposite party is that complainant has to pay additional hire charges for the default committed in making payments within the monthly stipulated date. In fact complainant has closed the loan two months prior to the last date of instalment. There is absolutely no document or plea to support the charges of Rs.62,080/- as insurance expenses in Ext.B2 account statement. Such baseless account statements are intended only to exploit the consumer. Though the financier has every right to prosper by doing business of finances but it cannot be like a Merchant of Venice. We have no doubt to hold that complainant has paid the entire loan amount. The non-issuance of hire purchase termination letter even after repayment of loan is deficiency in service. We find first opposite party deficient in service. In the set of circumstances we hold that issuance of hire purchase termination letter would be adequate relief tot he complainant. All other prayers are disallowed.

8. In the result we allow the complaint and order that first opposite party shall issue hire purchase termination letter to the complainant in regard to the vehicle KL10/M 9396 within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which on request made by the complainant, a copy of this order shall be communicated to third opposite party who on receipt of copy of this order shall cancel the endorsement in favour of opposite party in regard to the vehicle KL-10/M 9396. We make no order as to costs.

Dated this 16th day of July, 2009.

Sd/-

C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-

MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER

APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1series

Ext.A1series : Receipts (40 Nos.) received from first opposite party to complainant.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Ext.B1 and B2

Ext.B1 : Loan cum Hypothecation Agreement executed between complainant

and first opposite party.

Ext.B2 : Computer print of details of account.

Sd/-

C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-

MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER