DATE OF FILING : 11.8.2015
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI
Dated this the 27th day of January, 2017
Present :
SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT
SMT. LIZAMMA ABRAHAM. K. MEMBER
SRI. BENNY. K. MEMBER
CC NO.237/2015
Between
Complainant : Sajini,
Cheruvilakathu House,
Chappathu P.O.,
Idukki.
(By Adv: Vikraman Nair N.G.)
And
Opposite Parties : 1. The Manager,
SML Finance Ltd.,
Thodupuzha,
Vengalloor P.O.,
Idukki.
2. SML Finance Ltd.,
Kattappana,
Vellayamkudi P.O.,
Idukki.
O R D E R
SMT. LIZAMMA ABRAHAM. K. (MEMBER)
Complainant is the registered owner of a Piaggio Autorickshaw bearing Reg. No.KL-37-6415, which is purchased for his livelihood, for which he had availed a hire purchase loan of ₹60000 from the opposite party and had agreed to pay the amount in 24 equal monthly instalments of ₹3300 each. The original RC Book of the vehicle was entrusted with opposite party. At that time, complainant has paid ₹36300 in 11 instalments regularly, but opposite party had been collecting huge amounts over and above the instalment amount. Due to some unforeseen reasons, complainant could not remit the instalment regularly. Again complainant paid ₹37800 to the outstanding amount. Thus a total of ₹74100 is paid. Actual amount to be remitted is only ₹79200. Complainant is liable to pay only ₹5100 towards the loan. Opposite party has withheld the RC Book which is needed for testing of the vehicle. Opposite party is trying to possess the vehicle forcefully. Complainant approached the Forum for the
(cont.....2)
- 2 -
reliefs such as; restrain the opposite parties from forceful possession of the vehicle and charging exorbitant interest for the defaulted instalments and also to return the RC Book and NOC. Complainant also seeks compensation for the mental agony caused by the act of the opposite party.
In the written version, 1st opposite party stated that complainant had not availed a loan from this opposite party. Instead complainant availed a loan from Kattappana Branch and an amount of ₹60000 was advanced at 16% interest as per agreement. The finance charge of the said loan was ₹19200. As per agreement, complainant agreed to pay the loan amount along with the agreed interest rate, amounting to ₹79200 by 24 monthly instalments of ₹3300 each. But complainant paid only 19 instalments and he was a gross defaulter and penal interest and default charges were collected and as per agreement, contention of the complainant that he had paid ₹74100 is false and complainant is liable to pay instalments 20 – 24 and it amounts to ₹16500. A total of ₹29762 is due from the complainant. Complainant is liable to pay AFC, HP balance and legal expenses and instalment due as per the agreement. All allegations against the opposite party is false and denied. The complainant is not entitled for any relief and the petition may be dismissed.
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 ?
No oral evidence adduced by both parties. Exts.P1 and P2 marked on the side of complainant and Ext.R1 marked on the side of opposite parties.
The POINT :- Complainant's case is that, he had availed a hire purchase loan for ₹60000 from the opposite party to purchase the vehicle Piaggio Autorickshaw with Reg. No.KL-37-6415, to ply for his livelihood. It was agreed to repay the same in 24 equal monthly instalments of ₹3300 each. Complainant has paid ₹36300 in 11 instalments regularly and later the payments defaulted. Again complainant paid ₹37800. Copies of cash receipt vouchers 5 numbers are marked as Ext.P1(series) and copy of instalment card is marked as Ext.P2. But opposite party is demanding exorbitant interest and huge amount. Complainant stated that out of ₹79200 he had paid ₹74100 and a balance of ₹5100 only is to be paid. Copy of loan agreement is marked as Ext.R1.
(cont.....3)
- 3 -
Opposite party, in the written version contents that complainant has not taken any loan from them, but from SML Finance, Kattappana and as per the petition of complainant, they were impleaded as additional 2nd opposite party. Copy of statement of account issued by additional 2nd opposite party is also produced. Opposite party contend that complainant had availed a loan from the opposite party and ₹60000 was paid as advance. The finance charge was ₹19200. It was agreed to repay ₹79200 in 24 equal instalments of ₹3300 each. Complainant had paid only 19 instalments. Complainant has get to pay ₹16500 for 20 – 24 instalments. Complainant has to pay ₹29762 more in the loan account.
Opposite party contend that complainant was a chronic defaulter and they had charged the penal and default charges as per the agreement. But we, the Forum is of considered view that opposite party cannot charge the default and penal charges according to their whims and fancies. Opposite party has not prove that they are charging such interest and charges as stipulated by RBI. Complainant is a poor autorickshaw owner who plies it for his livelihood. The charging of exorbitant and high penal and default charges is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the part of opposite parties. The Forum is of the opinion that opposite parties should take a lenient view in this regard.
Hence the petition partially allowed. Opposite parties are directed to charge 12% interest per annum for the defaulted amount, for the defaulted period. Opposite parties are also directed to issue NOC of the vehicle to the complainant within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 27th day of January, 2017
Sd/- SMT. LIZAMMA ABRAHAM. K. (MEMBER)
Sd/-
I agree SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)
Sd/-
I agree SRI. BENNY. K. (MEMBER)
(cont.....4)
- 4 -
APPENDIX
Depositions :
Nil.
Exhibits :
On the side of the Complainant :
Ext.P1(series) - Copy of Receipts.
Ext.P2 - Copy of instalment card.
On the side of the Opposite Party :
Ext.R1 - Copy of agreement.
Forwarded by Order,
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
