D.O.F:21/03/2019

                                                                                                 D.O.O:28/01/2022

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

CC.No.57/2019

Dated this, the  28^th day of January 2022

PRESENT:

SRI.KRISHNAN.K                         :PRESIDENT

SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER

SMT.BEENA.K.G                            : MEMBER

Abdul Hameed.B.K

S/o Haji.B.K Fazal

Haji Manzil, Pallathadka                                                                 : Complainant

Peradala Kasaragod-671551

(Adv: Shafi.M)

1. The Manager

Shiram Transport Finance Co. Ltd

101 – 105, 1 st Floor, B wing, Shiv

Chambers, Sector – 11, C.B.D, Belapur

Navi Mumbai-400614         

                                                                                   : Opposite Parties

2. The managr

Sriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd.

Uppala (P.O) Uppala Manjeshwar, Kasaragod.

(Adv: Babuchandran.K)

ORDER

SRI.KRISHNAN.K  :PRESIDENT

     The brief facts as set out in the complaint is that the complainant applied for and availed a vehicle loan of Rs. 18,00,000/- from Opposite Party repayable is 48 monthly instalments for purchase of earth mover JCB, several signatures were obtained in blank papers, cheques leaves were obtained and loan was disbursed by 2^nd Opposite Party.  The complainant submitted that he paid Rs. 2, 45,000/- towards loan amount in five monthly instalments.  Loan matures in March 2022.  Grievance of complainant is that Opposite Party is demanding huge amount for settlement of loan account.  Opposite Party is threatening to seize the vehicle KL-14 D 1719 despite his preparedness to repay the correct amount due on getting true statement of account.  Opposite Party did not furnish details of due amount claimed by them.  Complainant seeking relief of preventing the Opposite Party in seizing the vehicle by prohibitory order and direction to furnish schedule of correct amount due and settle the loan account for a reasonable amount and to pay compensation.  Interim order was passed in IA 43/2019 preventing seizure pending complaint subject to deposit of Rs. 25,000/-.

3. The Opposite Party filed written version resisting the complaint.  Opposite Party submitted that the complaint is not maintainable at law.  Opposite Party admits availing of loan by complainant.  He executed loan hypothecation agreement dated 31/07/2018.  Complainant has to pay Rs. 5,17,558/- as on 17/06/2019 but and paid  only Rs. 1,23,100/- .  Opposite Party denied the allegation made in the complaint and submitted that there is no unfair trade practice as alleged by the complainant that there is no deficiency service and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

     Both parties did not adduce any evidence.

So point for consideration is

a) Whether complainant is a consumer?

b) Whether complainant is entitled for the relief claimed in the complaint?

c) Whether there is deficiency in service from Opposite Party?  Whether complainant is entitled for compensation? If so for what reliefs?

     The complainant’s case is that he is a self employed person and nothing prevents a self employed person for purchasing vehicle for his livelihood.  Hence complainant is a consumer.

     The Opposite Party submits that the entire transaction is hire purchase loan transaction and nature of issues involved in the dispute are limited to furnishing statement of loan account to the complainant.  Loan schedule is furnished even on the date of agreement itself.  Complainant himself stated that there are 48 monthly instalments of Rs. 49,000/- Even as per complaint complainant paid only a small portion of the amount due by him.

     Whether Opposite Parties right to seize the vehicle is justified.  Apex Court in Suryapal Singh V Sidha Vinayak Motors and anr reported in III(2012) CPJ 4SC hold as follows.

     Under the hire purchase agreement, it is the financier who is the owner of the vehicle and the person who takes the loan retain the vehicle only as a bailee/trustee, therefore, taking possession of the vehicle on the ground of non – payment of instalments has always been upheld to be a legal right of the financier.

     We have also referred the citation by the National Commission  in Surendra Kumar Agarwal V Teko Finance Ltd and another reported in II 2010 CPJ 163 NC dated 11/03/2010.

   The Opposite Party have every right to seize the vehicle financed by them as the complainant became a defaulter in payment of the instalments.  Issue No1 and 2 are found in favour of Opposite Party holding that no prohibitory order as prayed for from seizing the vehicle is justified by law and prayer is rejected.

    With respect to the other prayer of the complainant keeping in view the aforementioned decisions, we are of the considered view that the schedule of repayment is already known to complainant.  There is no need for any further directions.  Further Opposite Party produced award dated 10/05/2020 by arbitrator.  Award shows a liability of complainant to Opposite Party.  Therefore there is no deficiency service complainant is not entitled reliefs of any compensation.  Hence complainant is not entitled to any reliefs in the case.

     In the result complaint is dismissed without any order as to costs.

     Sd/-                                                     Sd/-                                                    Sd/-

MEMBER                                          MEMBER                                          PRESIDENT

Forwarded by Order

                                                                                    Senior Superintendent

Ps/