D.o.F:27/09/2013
D.o.O:31/01/2015
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.NO.221/13
Dated this, the 31st day of January 2015
PRESENT:
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : PRESIDENT
SMT.BEENA K.G : MEMBER
SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL : MEMBER
Abdul Muneer, S/o Abbas,
R/at Muneer Manzil, Po.Alampady, : Complainant
Santhosh Nagar, Kasaragod.
1.The Manager, Indus Ind Bank Ltd.
Bye Pass, North End,Edapally,Ernakulam. : Opposite parties
2.The Manager, Indus Ind Bank Ltd,
City Building,Kasaragod.
(Adv.Sreejith.K)
ORDER
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : PRESIDENT
The facts of the complainant in brief are as follows:
That the complainant availed a loan for his Honda Activa Scooter from Ist opposite party in the year 2007 and he has been remitting the instalments regularly. The complainant had paid Rs.10500/- on 17/12/2009 as the last remittance and cleared the entire liability in respect of that loan. At the time of availing loan the subject vehicle is hypothecated to Ist opposite party and kept the RC and Key with their custody and the complainant has been remitting the loan amount through 2nd opposite party. Eventhough the entire liability is cleared, the opposite parties were so far not handed over the original RC, 2nd key, hypothecation cancellation letter, etc to the complainant. The complainant approached the opposite parties several times for getting the documents but opposite parties were not returned the vehicular documents in one pretext or the other. At last on 2/8/2013 the opposite parties have refused to return the documents when the complainant contacted opposite parties 1& 2 and claimed some more amount with respect to the vehicle loan. Complainant submits that complainant is not liable to remit any amount towards the loan. Hence the complaint is filed for necessary relief.
Opposite parties filed version and denied all the allegations made by the complainant against opposite parties. In the version the opposite parties admitted the loan availed b y the complainant from opposite parties and also admitted the payment made by the complainant on 17/12/09 for an amount of Rs.10500/-. According to opposite parties the amount of Rs.10500/- is not cleared the entire liability and Rs.1200/- is the balance due to the opposite parties and the opposite parties also denied that the original RC is with the opposite party. It is further submitted that the opposite parties informed the complainant that they will provide no objection certificate after remitting the balance amount of Rs.1200/- and the complainant has not taken any initiative to settle the matter. On 27/8/13 the opposite party called the complainant to the office and made a settlement and as per settlement the complainant has paid the amount of Rs.300/- on 27/8/13 as per receipt No.6540413J 29p0001 and the same is sent to the Chennai office and thereafter Chennai office sent the No Objection certificate and the same was informed to the complainant and the complainant has not obtained the no objection certificate and duplicate key and thereafter on 26/9/13 the opposite party sent a registered letter to the complainant to collect the no objection certificate and duplicate key but the complainant failed to collect the same. There is no deficiency in service in their part. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
On going through the entire facts on record the following issues raised for consideration
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties
- If so what is the relief as costs and compensation?
The evidence in this case consists of the evidence of PW1 the complainant and Exts.A1 to A6 and DW1 and Ext.B1 and B2 documents.
4. Heard both sides and documents perused.
Here the specific case of the complainant is that he has closed his loan account with opposite parties long back and opposite parties refused to return the original RC and duplicate key to the complainant. In order to substantiate his contentions he has produced Ext.A5 document. Ext.A5 is the document issued by opposite parties showing the payment of Rs.10500/- made by the complainant. The receipt is dtd.17/12/09 and in Ext.A5 there is an entry SOH CLOSED SOH indicates statement of Hire . That means statement of hire is closed. According to complainant SHO closed means entire loan amount closed and no further balance. According to opposite parties after Ext.A5 there is a balance of Rs.1200/- and the complainant fails to pay that amount and that is why they were not returned the documents. But on perusal of the statement of account produced by the opposite party dt.16/2/14 there is no amount of Rs.1200/ as balance on 17/12/09. The balance shown on that day was Rs.570/-. Then the next entry seen in the above mentioned statement of account is on 29/8/13 and on that day the balance is shown as Rs.1440/- and under the instalments had the particulars shown as system journal and there are 3 entries in that day and at last a cash receipt of Rs.300/- is shown. The above said statement itself shows that there was no balance amount of Rs.1200/- as on 17/12/09. That means the entries in the statements produced by the Ist opposite parties are not tallying with the amount stated in the version. On 17/12/09 balance may be more than Rs.10500/- and after waiving some interest the parties may be settled the matter. Anyway the amount paid on 17/12/09 is for the final settlement of the claim and the documentary evidence is very clear to prove the case of the complainant. Moreover in the version the opposite party specifically stated that the original RC is not with them and it is given by the RTO authorities directly to the complainant. But while cross examining DW1 he admits that the original RC is with their custody and moreover Ext.B2 filed along with version clearly shows that original RC is with the custody of the opposite parties. On going through the entire facts on record and on perusal of the documents we are not in a position to believe that Ext.B1 is a true and genuine document. This document is after filing of the complaint. If the complainant is paid the amount and settled the matter, what is prevented him from withdrawing the complaint? Moreover whether a big finance company like opposite party proceeded against a loanee over a period of about 5 years for getting an amount of Rs.300/-. Whether this can be believable. Here there is latches or deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the side of opposite parties. The opposite party failed to provide proper service to its customers that means after receiving the entire amount of loan the opposite parties failed to return back the original RC, No objection certificate or duplicate key to the complainant. Therefore the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant.
Therefore the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to return the original RC of KL 14G 6644, second key and also issue hypothecation cancellation letter to complainant and further directed to pay a compensation of Rs.25000/- with a cost of Rs.2000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. If the opposite parties failed to comply with the order within the prescribed time on application by the complainant. The RTO is directed to cancel the hypothecation and to issue duplicate RC to the complainant.
Exts:
A1-copy of lawyer notice
A2-&A3- postal receipts
A4- copy of RC
A5- cash receipt of OP
B1- letter from Ops to PW1
B2- statement of account
PW1-Abdul Muneer-complainant
DW1-Santhosh Kumar.C.N- manager of OP
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
eva