Kerala

Kannur

CC/10/75

Deepa Vijayan, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Tata Motors Ltd, - Opp.Party(s)

09 Feb 2011

ORDER


CDRF,KannurCDRF,Kannur
Complaint Case No. CC/10/75
1. Deepa Vijayan, Mythili bhavan, PO Mamba 670611KannurKerala ...........Appellant(s)

Versus.
1. The Manager, Tata Motors Ltd, South Bazar, Kannur 670002KannurKerala ...........Respondent(s)



BEFORE:
HONORABLE MR. GOPALAN.K ,PRESIDENTHONORABLE PREETHAKUMARI.K.P ,MemberHONORABLE JESSY.M.D ,Member
PRESENT :

Dated : 09 Feb 2011
JUDGEMENT

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.

D.O.F. 01.03.2010

                                                                                  D.O.O. 09.02.2011

 

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR

 

Present:   Sri. K. Gopalan                                     :        President

                Smt. K.P. Preethakumari                     :         Member

                Smt. M.D. Jessy                                   :        Member

 

Dated this the 9th day of February, 2011.

 

 

C.C.No.75/2010

 

Deepa Vijayan,

‘Mythili Bhavan’,

P.O. Mamba,                                                        :         Complainant

Kannur District - 670611                                                       

(Rep. by Adv. N. Dinesh) 

 

The Manager,

Tata Motors Limited,                                            :         Opposite Party

South Bazar, Kannur – 670 002

(Rep. by Adv. M. Preman)

                              

 

O R D E R

 

Sri. K. Gopalan, President.

          This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to issue Higher Purchase cancellation letter and to pay the cost of this proceedings.

          The brief facts of the case of the complainant are as follows :  The complainant purchased a vehicle on 03.02.2006 availing a finance of      ` 4,50,000 from opposite party.  The Register Number of the vehicle is KL-13/P 7898.  As per the repayment Schedule 47 monthly installments has to be paid from 02.03.2006 to 02.01.2010 @ ` 11,900. The amount covers the interest as well as insurance premium for 3 subsequent years.  All the monthly installments of the said amount was paid through cheques except the last installment.  The last installment was paid through Demand Draft dated 26.12.2009.   Complainant made request on 02.01.2010 to issue Higher Purchase cancellation letter since the entire amount was paid.   Opposite party did not issue the HP cancellation letter.   Hence lawyer notice was issued on 23.01.2010 which was acknowledged on 25.01.2010.  Opposite party has not responded to the notice.   Hence this complaint.

          Pursuant to the notice opposite party entered appearance and filed version denying the entire averments in the complaint.  The brief contents raised by the opposite party in the version are as follows :  The complainant availed a loan for purchasing a truck from this opposite party.  As per the stipulation in the contract the complainant has to make payment by monthly installment. The complainant was irregular in repaying installments.  The delayed payment would attract an overdue interest.   Only if the entire overdue amount and overdue charges are paid the clearance certificate will be issued.  As per the books of account maintained by the opposite party, the complainant is liable to pay an amount of ` 27,141being the overdue installment and ` 24,320 being overdue charges as on 08.06.2010.  The complainant was informed the actual position of the account after getting the lawyer notice.   There is unlawful act on the side of opposite party and as such the complainant is not entitled to any relief.  Hence to dismiss the complaint.

          On the above pleadings the following issues have been taken for consideration.

1.     Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite parties.

2.     Whether complainant is entitled for any relief as prayed in the complaint.

3.     Relief and cost.

The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1, Ext.A1 to A6, Ext.B1 and B2.

Issues No.1 to 3 :

          Admittedly the vehicle was purchased by availing finance from the opposite party.  Complainant’s case is that she has remitted the entire loan amount but the opposite party did not issue the higher purchase cancellation letter.  Opposite party on the other hand contented that complainant was highly irregular in payment of the loan amount.  Complainant is liable to pay an amount of ` 27,141 being the overdue installments and ` 24,320 being the overdue charges.

          PW1 adduced evidence by way of chief affidavit in lieu of chief examination in tune with the pleadings.  PW1, adduced evidence that the loan amount ` 4,50,000 was agreed to pay by 47 equal monthly installments.  The rate of interest was 4.49%.  As per the agreement total amount to be paid is`  5,60,820 ie ` 13,420 as first installment and        ` 11,900 by 46 equal monthly installments.  PW1 further states that the entire amount as per the agreement has been paid by way of cheque and the last installment paid by way of DD on 26.12.2009.  But opposite party did not issue Higher Purchase cancellation letter even after getting the lawyer notice.  Ext.A1 is the payment schedule which reveals that the  amount is ` 4,50,000, down payment ` 56,600.75 and the interest rate is 4.49%.  It also reveals that the contract amount is ` 5,60,820.  PW1 adduced evidence by way of chief affidavit that the entire amount has been paid as per the agreement.  Complainant has produced the statement of account issued by Anjarakkandi Farmers Co-operative Service Bank.  Though it was not marked the perusal of the document reveals that 45 installments of ` 11,900 have been paid by the complainant.  PW1 also adduced evidence that ` 13,420 has been paid as the 1st installment and 47th installment was paid through DD dated 26.12.2009.  Opposite party did not challenge the payment Ext.A2 proves that the last payment is made through DD No.128091 dated 26.12.2009 (` 11,900) drawn on HDFC Bank, Kannur.  Hence there is no doubt that the evidence of PW1 by way of affidavit evidence that the complainant has paid an amount of ` 5,60,820 as the total amount which is liable to be paid by the complainant as per the agreement is correct.  Ext.A1 proves that the total amount to be paid is ` 5,60,82o.  Thus there is no need to disbelieve the evidence of complainant.  Opposite party did not adduce evidence otherwise.  In the cross examination of PW1 opposite party did not questioned or challenged any of the payment made by the complainant as incorrect.  Ext.A3 is the lawyer notice.  Ext.A4 and A5 receipt and acknowledgement that proves the opposite party has received lawyer notice.  Ext.A3 elaborately detailed the payment and claimed by the complainant that the entire amount has been paid.  Opposite party did not sent any reply to this notice.  Non-replying of legal notice sent by the complainant as far as this case is concerned is a clear admission that the complainant has paid the amount ` 5,60,820.  Ext.B1 & B2 produced by opposite party is not capable to disprove the payment of complainant.  No witness is examined on the side of opposite party.  It is pertinent to note that opposite party did not sent any notice demanding complainant to pay any amount as due before the lawyer notice.  They claimed that the actual position was informed with respect to the account there is no evidence for this.  If there was any amount due opposite party atleast would have been sent the reply to the lawyer notice detailing the statement of payment.  Hence it is clear that complainant has paid the entire amount.

          In the light of the above discussion with the available reference on the file it can be seen that the complainant has paid the contract amount.  Opposite party did not adduce any evidence to show that there is any amount due by the complainant to be paid.  Hence we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and opposite party is liable to issue Higher Purchase termination letter.  Complainant is also entitled to get an amount of ` 1,000 as compensation and an amount of   ` 1,000 as cost of this proceedings.

          In the result the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to issue Higher Purchase cancellation letter and to pay an amount of       ` 1,000 (Rupees One Thousand only) as compensation together with a sum of ` 1,000 (Rupees One Thousand only) as cost of this litigation within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is entitled to execute the order as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act.

                            Sd/-                   Sd/-                      Sd/-

President              Member                Member

 

 

APPENDIX

 

Exhibits for the Complainant

 

A1. Payment schedule dated 03.02.2006.           

A2. Copy of the Demand Draft issuing letter dated 02.01.2010.          

A3. Copy of lawyer notice dated 23.01.2010.         

A4. Postal receipt dated 23.01.2010.

A5. Postal acknowledgement dated 25.01.2010.

A6.  Power of Attorney.

 

Exhibits for the opposite party

 

B1. Contract and repayment details dated 08.06.2010.

B2. Termination details dated 08.06.2010.

 

Witness examined for the complainant

 

PW1.  C.M. Vijayan

 

Witness examined for opposite party

 

nil

 

  

                                                                          /forwarded by order/

 

 

 

 

                                                                     SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT

 


[HONORABLE PREETHAKUMARI.K.P] Member[HONORABLE MR. GOPALAN.K] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE JESSY.M.D] Member