CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KOTTAYAM
Present
Sri. Bose Augustine, President
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No. 47/11
Friday the 20th day of September, 2013
Petitioner : V.J.Joseph,
S/o Joseph,
Vechoor Kizhakkethil house,
Manimala PO, Kottayam.
(Adv. Cyriac Simon)
Vs
Opposite parties : 1) Tata Motors Limited
1st floor, Cybertech house,
Plot No.B63/65 Road No.21/34
J.B Sawant Marg, Wagle Estate
Thane West-400 604
2) Manager
Tata Motors Limited
do
3) Branch Manager,
Tata Motor Finance,
Ground floor, Geetha Trade Centre
Near Y.W.C.A, Kottayam.
(Adv.P.Fazil&Babu.P.Thomas)
ORDER
Sri. Bose Augustine, President
The case of the petitioner filed on 24-02-2011 is as follows.
Petitioner on 29-7-2005 purchased a Tata Mini Lorry under a loan agreement with 3rd opposite party and hypothecation of the vehicle was also done. And at the time of signing the agreement 3rd opposite party collected blank cheques from the petitioner. And the repayment schedule was in 60 monthly installments and petitioner regularly remitted all monthly installments. According to petitioner the last installment was remitted on 26-7-2010 and 3rd opposite party illegally demanded Rs.19,500/- for closing the loan and on 18-9-2010 petitioner remitted the same. And petitioner demanded NOC and gets back the signed blank cheques entrusted by the petitioner at the time of loan agreement. But 3rd opposite party is not willing to issue NOC and return the signed blank cheques. So on 25-11-10 petitioner sent a lawyer notice intimating the 3rd opposite party regarding closing of the loan account. According to petitioner on 17-2-11 he was personally approached the 3rd opposite party and demanded NOC and get back signed blank cheques. But 3rd opposite party demanded Rs.8000/- as over due charge. According to petitioner he is not liable for over due charges and he was duly remitted all installments in time and in addition to it on 18-9-2010 he remitted Rs.19,500/-. According to petitioner the act of 3rd opposite party in not issuing the NOC and give back the signed cheques, is amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this petition is filed for the order to direct the 3rd opposite party to issue NOC and give back the cheques.
Notice was served to opposite parties but first and second opposite party failed to appear and contest the case and was declared as set expartee. 3rd opposite party filed version contenting that petitioner approached this Forum by suppressing the material facts. According to 3rd opposite party petitioner has defaulted several installments in repayments within the prescribed time. And from repayment history it can be seen that the petitioner failed to repay the loan installments within stipulated time and also defaulted in making full payments of the amount as agreed under the contract. So petitioner is liable to remit delayed payment charges along with remaining balance towards the installments. According to 3rd opposite party due to the default by the petitioner, opposite party have sent their officers/agent to the residence of the petitioner for collection of defaulted installments which has resulted in retainer and collections agency charges of Rs.11,750/- and Rs.5,148/- respectively. Due to the default of petitioner 3rd opposite party have sent various legal notice to petitioner. So they spent Rs.4,826.68/- as legal expenses. And more over petitioner opted for finance of the insurance along with vehicle under agreement. So opposite party has incurred Rs.7,355/- towards insurance provision. According to 3rd opposite party as per the terms of loan agreement petitioner is liable to pay bank charges, legal expenses etc. And as on 4-4-11 opposite party has incurred an amount of Rs.33,605.18/- towards stamping charges, bank charges, retainer charges, legal expenses, stamp recovery, insurance provision etc. And on 4-4-2011 petitioner’s due was Rs.47,076.04/- to 3rd opposite party, thus 3rd opposite party is not liable to issue NOC. According to 3rd opposite party they are ready to issue NOC on payment of the outstanding amount of Rs.47,076.04/-. So opposite party pray for dismissal of petition with their cost.
Points for determinations are:
i) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the part of opposite parties?
ii) Reliefs and Costs?
Evidence in this case consists of the affidavit of the petitioner and Ext.A1 to A5 documents. Even though 3rd opposite party filed version along with copy of some documents but they failed to adduce any evidence.
Point No.1
The brief of the case is that petitioner purchased a Mini Lorry under a loan agreement with 3rd opposite party and hypothecation of the vehicle was also done. And after remittance of the entire installment of the loan amount. Opposite party is not willing to issue NOC and return the signed blank cheques which are entrusted by the petitioner at the time of execution of loan agreement. According to opposite party on 4-4-11 there was due of Rs.47,076.04/- out standing from the petitioner to opposite party, so they detain the NOC. Even though opposite party has a definite case of outstanding amounts nothing has placed on record other than photocopy of a statement not duly certified as per the Evidence Act along with version. So the case of opposite party that there is an outstanding amount of Rs.47,076 is not acceptable. Petitioner produced copy of the receipts issued by the opposite party at the time of payment of the installment, said documents are marked as Ext.A2 series. In Ext.A2 series there is not mentioned regarding the installment number. In the lack of contra evidence we are constrained to relay on the sworn proof affidavit filed by the petitioner. Even though petitioner has a definite case of entrustment of signed blank cheques to the opposite party. Nothing has placed on records to prove the said contentions. So the relief for return of the entrusted cheque is not allowable. In our view the act of opposite party in not giving the NOC even after accepting the entire installments, amounts to deficiency in service. So point No.1 is found accordingly.
Point No.2
In view of the findings in point No.1 petition is allowed in part.
In the result the following order is passed
i) Third opposite party is directed to give NOC to the loan No. HPA CVH 10832071, to the petitioner. If the NOC is not given as directed, petitioner is entitled for a compensation of Rs.25,000/-
ii) Third opposite party is ordered not to take forcible possession of the vehicle (Tata Mini Lorry) with vide Reg.No.KL 5/U 3101
iii) Third opposite party is ordered to pay an amount of Rs.1000/- as
compensation and Rs.750/- as cost, to the petitioner.
Order shall be complied with within one month of receipt of a copy of the order.
Sri. Bose Augustine, President Sd/-
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Documents of petitioner
Ext.A1-photocopy of repayment schedule
Ext.A2-series photocopy of receipts
Ext.A3-Insurance certificate
Ext.A4-photocopy of notice
Ext.A4(a)-photocopy of notice
Ext.A5-photocopy of R.C Book.
Documents of opposite party
Nil
By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
