D.O.F:07/02/2022
D.O.O:29/04/2022
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KASARAGOD
CC.No.27/2022
Dated this, the 29th day of April 2022
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M: MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Charan.Raj Aged 35 years
S/o Nagappa Shetty
R/at Poomanu House, Udyawara : Complainant
Manjeshwara Post, Manjeshwara Taluk
(Adv: Udaya Kumar.R)
And
1. The Manager
Maxvalue Credits and investment Ltd
1st Floor AVK Arcade, Bank Rd, Kasaragod,
Kerala 671121
2. The Recovery Manager : Opposite Party
Maxvalue Credits and Investments Ltd
1st floor, City Plaza , Main Road , Opp South Indian Bank
Kanhangad, 671315
ORDER
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M: MEMBER
The complaint is filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019
The facts of the case in brief is that the complainant availed a loan of Rs.69,000/- from the Ops for the purchase of his Motor Cycle Bearing No.14 – Y -4948 .The loan was to be repaid by 24 EMI of Rs. 3,463/- and the total amount to be paid was Rs 87,432/- . Eventhough there was some default in payment of EMI in the mean time due to financial difficulties arised out of covid andemic, the complainant paid the entire amount on 5.01.2022. The complainant is working in Mangalore and due to covid related restrictions, he was unable to take his Kerala registered vehicle to Karnataka state. So the complainant wanted to sell his Kerala registered Vehicle and purchase a new vehicle from Karnataka.
Therefore the complainant approached the Opposite Parties to issue NOC for releasing hypothecation, but the Opposite Parties were not ready for that and attempted to take away the possession of the vehicle by illegally demanding more amount for which they are not entitled to. The non issuing of NOC and attempting to take away the possession of the vehicle by illegally demanding more amount after receiving entire loan amount is service deficiency due to which the complainant put to great mental agony and loss.
Hence this complaint is filed for directing the Opposite Parties to issue the NOC for releasing hypothecation for producing before RTO. The Opposite Parties are also to be directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards costs.
The notice send to the Opposite Parties duly served but they never appeared, called absent and set exparte.
The Complainant filed proof affidavit in Iieu of chief examination and marked document as Ext. A 1 and Ext. A 2. The Ext – A1 is a copy of the RC of the Vehicle, Ext. A 2 is the Statement of account of the loan issued by Opposite Parties.
Based on the pleadings and evidence in this case the following issues are framed for consideration.
1. Whether there is any service deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party?
2. If so, what is the relief and costs?
For convenience, all the above issues are discussed together.
The specific case of the complainant is that he had paid the entire loan amount on 5.01.2022 and that there after he approached the Opposite Parties to issue NOC for releasing hypothecation, but the Opposite Parties were not ready for that and attempted to take away the possession of the vehicle by illegally demanding more amount for, which they are not entitled to.
The non issuing of NOC and attempting to take away the possession of the vehicle by illegally demanding more amount after receiving entire loan amount is service deficiency, due to which the complainant put to great mental agony and loss.
The complainant states that loan was to be repaid by 24 EMI of Rs. 3,463/- and the total amount to be paid was Rs 87,432/- . Even though there was some default in payment of EMI in the mean time due to financial difficulties arised out of covid andemic, the complainant paid the entire amount on 5.01.2022.
The complainant produced the Ext. A2, the Statement of account of the loan issued by opposite Parties, which shows that as on 5.01.2022 the balance is zero.
Therefore, by considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the absence of any rebuttal evidence this commission of the view that there is service deficiency on the part of the Opposite Parties.
In the result the complaint is allowed and the Opposite Parties are directed to issue the NOC for releasing hypothecation in respect of the Vehicle Motor Cycle Bearing No.14 – Y -4948 for producing before RTO.
The Opposite Parties are also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) towards compensation and Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards costs to the complainant.
The time for compliance is 30 days from receipt of the copy of this judgment.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1- copy of R.C
A2- Statement of account
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/
