DATE OF FILING : 16.7.2015

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 30^th day of March, 2017

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

SRI. BENNY. K. MEMBER

CC NO.327/2015

Between

Complainant : Erudaya Raj, S/o. Antony Raj,

345(18/178) Kizhakkel House,

Thodupuzha, Idukki – 685 584.

(By Advs: Arun Jose Thomas

& Smiju K. Das)

And

Opposite Parties : 1. The Manager,

Tata Motors Finance Ltd.,

Velloorkkunnam P.O.,

Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam.

2. The Manager,

Popular Mega Motors,

Pala Road, Thodupuzha,

Idukki.

O R D E R

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

Complaiannt is the registered owner of Tata Ace vehicle bearing Reg. No.KL-38B-4532, which he purchased from the 2^nd opposite party on 25.10.2011 for which a loan of Rs.2,77,000/- was availed from the 1^st opposite party, to be repaid in 48 monthly instalments of Rs.8,287/- each. All documentation was done by the executive of 1^st opposite party, at the office of 2^nd opposite party. Complainant paid Rs.31322/- in cash as down payment. At the time of purchase, 2^nd opposite party assured the vehicle is of good quality, but immediately after purchase, the vehicle showed major complaints and on 10.3.2012 and 26.6.2012, engine was replaced under warranty. On 28.2.2014, another major engine work was done at Focus Motors Perumbavoor and Rs.36,835/- was paid for repairs. Each time when the vehicle was entrusted for repair, it took 20-30 days for curing the defect. Since the said vehicle is the only source of income, delay in repair had caused severe hardships to the complainant and his family.

(cont.....2)

- 2 -

Complainant had already paid 45 instalments. But due to the defects and delay in repair, three instalments were defaulted. Complainant is liable to pay only Rs.24,861/- for which opposite party demanded Rs.65,461/-. Complainant had paid Rs.3,72,915/-. Complainant is ready to pay the defaulted instalments. But 1^st opposite party and his men were threatening the complainant and his family, directly and also through phone. Complainant and his family are experiencing harsh humiliations and mental agony. Hence approached this Forum for getting his grievances redressed.

In the written version, 1^st opposite party admitted the vehicle loan availed by complainant on 25.10.2011 for Rs.2,77,000/- which is agreed to be repaid with finance charges of Rs.120776/- in 48 monthly instalments of Rs.8,287/- each. Complainant paid only Rs.3,59,920/- till 27.11.2015 and an amount of Rs.37850/- was due till 27.11.2015. Complainant is liable to pay Rs.3,98,510/- to the 1^st opposite party. 1^st opposite party is entitled to the penal interest and default charge as per the agreement. All other allegations against 1^st opposite party are not true and hence denied and hence the petition may be dismissed.

In the written version, 2^nd opposite party admits that the said vehicle was purchased from 2^nd opposite party on 25.10.2011, by availing a loan facility from the 1^st opposite party. The contention of the complainant that 2^nd opposite party had arranged the said loan from 1^st opposite party is not true. 2^nd opposite party is not a party to the loan contract made between complainant and 1^st opposite party. 2^nd opposite party contend that they are the dealers of high profit commercial vehicles like Tata Ace. The allegations of the complainant that immediately after purchase, the vehicle showed engine problem and engine was replaced two times under warranty, on 10.3.2012 and 26.6.2012 is denied. The vehicle history shows the said vehicle covered more than Rs.1,85,000/- kms on 14.3.2016. It is true that the vehicle was entrusted for repair on 10.3.2012 and head gasket was replaced. On 27.6.2012, again the cylinder head was repaired. But never the engine replaced. There is no deficiency in service from the part of 2^nd opposite party and not liable for any relief and petition may be dismissed.

Heard both sides. (cont.....3)

- 3 -

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 ?

The evidence consists of oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P3 marked. No oral or documentary evidence adduced by opposite parties.

The POINT :- Complainant filed affidavit and examined as PW1. Complainant alleges that he had purchased a Brand new Tata vehicle from the 2^nd opposite party by availing a loan of Rs.277000/- agreed to be repaid in 48 equal monthly instalments of Rs.8,287 each. Complainant paid Rs.31,322/- as down payment. Eventhough 2^nd opposite party assured superior quality and good condition of the vehicle, immediately after purchase, it began to show engine complaints and the vehicle was repaired and an amount of Rs.36,385/- was paid for repair. Complainant stated he had paid 45 instalments and only Rs.24,861/- is due and is ready to pay that amount, but 1^st opposite party is demanding and their men had threatened his family members and complainant and his family members are suffered severe humiliations from 1^st opposite party.

In the written version 1^st opposite party contended that complainant had paid Rs.3,59,920/- only till 27.11.2015 and is liable to pay Rs.398518/-. 1^st opposite party is entitled to penal interest and defaulted and other charges as per agreement.

2^nd opposite party in their version averred that they are only dealer of the vehicle and no financial dealings being done between the complainant and 2^nd opposite party. 2^nd opposite party is not a party to the loan agreement.

Tax invoice copies dated 10.3.2012, 26.6.2012 and 28.2.2014 are marked as Exts.P1, P2 and P3 respectively. Copy of contract details marked as Ext.P4.

Opposite party contend that the complainant was a chronic defaults and they had charged the penal and default charges as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. But we, the Forum is of a considered view

(cont....4)

- 4 -

that, opposite party cannot charge the default and penal charges according to their whims. Opposite party has not prove that they can charge such interest. Opposite party has not produced any authentic document from RBI or Government show that they can charge the penal interest and defaulted charges.

In the result, petition partially allowed. 1^st opposite party is directed to settle the loan account of the complainant by charging only 12% per annum for the defaulted instalments for the defaulted period and directed to return all documents collected as security for the loan within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this order.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30^th day of March, 2017

Sd/-

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

SRI. BENNY. K., MEMBER

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1 - Erudaya Raj.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Exts.P1 to P3 - Tax invoice copies dated 10.3.2012, 26.6.2012 & 28.2.2014

Ext.P4 - Contract details.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

/ Forwarded by Order /

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT