DATE OF FILING : 09.06.2010

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 31st day of July, 2010

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.116/2010

Between

Complainant : Justine Sylas S/o John Justine,

601, Vasantha Vilas,

Settlement Colony,

Munnar P.O,

Idukki District.

(By Adv: Shiji Joseph)

And

Opposite Parties : 1. The Manager,

Tata Motors Finance Company Limited,

Muvattupuzha.

Ernakulam District.

2. Tata Motors Company Limited,

Registered Office, 3^rd Floor,

Nanavathy Mahalaya,

18, Homi Mody Street,

Fort, Mumbai – 400 001.

3. Jacob,

Sales Manager,

Tata Motors Finance Company Limited,

Kottayam.

O R D E R

SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)
 

The complainant purchased a new Tata Indigo LS car bearing Registration No.KL-6C-4789 with the financial assistance of opposite parties 1 and 2. The 3^rd opposite party personally came to the Munnar Fancy Shop on 20.01.2005, where the complainant's father was doing stationery business. Since the father of the complainant has been suffering from severe Parkinson's disease, he was unable to travel long distances, hence the 3^rd opposite party came to the shop where the complainant and his father executed the loan agreement. As per the loan agreement, the complainant availed a loan of Rs.4,25,000/- and the amount has to be repaid in monthly instalments. The complainant issued post dated cheque leaves for the due payment of the instalments. All the cheque leaves, except those dated 25.07.2008, 25.11.2008, 25.12.2008, 27.04.2007 and 15.07.2008 were encashed by the opposite party. The cheque dated 25.07.2008, 25.11.2008 and 25.12.2008 were not produced before the bank in time, though sufficient funds were in the account. The cheques dated 27.04.2007 and 15.07.2008 were dishonoured because cheque No.89627 was presented along with another cheque, that was the reason for the dishonour. The cheque dated 15.07.2008 was dishonoured and the amount was paid by the complainant as D.D. Eventhough the complainant pad the entire amount within the stipulated time, the opposite party is not ready to issue the certificate of hypothecation termination. They demanded Rs.42,646/- as balance amount  for giving the certificate. The demand of the huge amount as additional finance charge is illegal and deficiency in service of the opposite party. Moreover the opposite party has moved an arbitration case against the complainant and his father at Mumbai. This is a clear unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Due to the illegal demand, the complainant and his family suffered severe mental agony and pain. So this petition is filed for directing the opposite parties to declare that the complainant is not liable to pay Rs.42,646/-and also for compensation.
 

2. The opposite parties were absent and called exparte.
 

3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?
 

4. No oral evidence adduced by the complainant and Exts.P1 to P3 marked on their side.

5. The POINT :- The petition is filed for restraining the opposite parties from demanding further amount in the vehicle loan availed by the complainant from the opposite parties. As per the complainant, he availed a loan of Rs.4,25,000/- from the opposite parties and that was to be repaid in monthly installments. Ext.P1 is the copy of the repayment schedule issued by the opposite party. The complainant was promptly paying the installments. The complainant issued post dated cheque leaves for the due payment of the installments. But the opposite party produced all the cheque leaves before the bank except the cheque dated 25.07.2008, 25.11.2008, 25.12.2008, 27.04.2007 and 15.07.2008. The cheque dated 25.07.2008, 25.11.2008 and 25.12.2008 were not produced by the opposite party before the bank even though there was sufficient fund in the account. Two of the cheque leaves were dishonoured which were dated 27.04.2007 and 15.07.2008. The reason for the dishonour was cheque No.89627 was presented along with another cheque leaf. The cheque dated 15.07.2008 was also dishonoured but the amount was paid by the complainant as D.D. The complainant had paid the entire amount in the loan account. Ext.P2(series) is the statement of accounts of the complainant issued from the SBT, Munnar Branch. Eventhough the entire amount was paid by the complainant, the opposite party never supplied the hypothecation termination certificate to the complainant. But they demanded Rs.42,646/- as balance amount for giving the certificate. The opposite party filed an arbitration proceedings against the complainant and Ext.P3 is the copy of the Notice of Arbitration Proceedings, demanding Rs.42,646/- as interest and other charges.
 

As per the complainant, the agreement was created at the Fancy Shop of the complainant's father in which the complainant and his father are signed. It was because the complainant's father was not able to travel to the opposite party's office since he was suffering from Parkinson's disease. As per Ext.P1 repayment schedule, there are 47 installments for the loan availed by the complainant and the total repayment amount is Rs.5,42,940/-. As per Ext.P2(series) statement of account produced by the complainant, an amount of Rs.5,42,115/- has been debited from the account of “New Munnar Fancy, Proprietor : Smt.S.Elizabeth Rajamani, G.H Road, Munnar, Vasantha Vilas, Settlement Colony, Munnar”. As per the complainant the account is operated by the complainant and it is produced for perusal. But these matters are not challenged by the opposite party. So we think that the account in the name of the New Munnar Fancy may be in the name of a close relative of the complainant through which the transaction has been done. The opposite party has debited a total amount of Rs.5,42,115/- from that account. So we think that as per Ext.P1 repayment schedule, the loan amount is Rs.5,42,940/- and the opposite party demanded an amount of Rs.42,646/- as interest is a gross unfair trade practice. The opposite party never produced any  statement of account of the vehicle loan. Eventhough the loan amount was repaid by the complainant, the opposite party denied to issue the hypothecation termination certificate. So we think that it is not proper to claim further amount from the complainant for the vehicle loan of the complainant's vehicle bearing Registration No.KL-6C-4789 Tata Indigo LS car.

Hence the petition allowed. The opposite parties are restrained from further proceedings against the complainant or against his properties for the recovery of the vehicle loan availed from the opposite party for the vehicle Tata Indigo LS car bearing Reg.No.KL-6C-4789 and pay Rs.1,500/- as cost of this petition to the complainant within one month of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default.
 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 31^st day of July, 2010

Sd/-
 

SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

Sd/-
 

SMT. SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)

Sd/-
 

SMT. BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of Complainant :

Nil

On the side of Opposite Parties :

Nil

Exhibits:

On the side of Complainant:

Ext.P1 - Photocopy of Repayment Schedule issued by the opposite party

Ext.P2(series) - Statement of Account of the complainant issued from the State

Bank of Travancore, Munnar

Ext.P3 - Copy of the Notice of Arbitration Proceedings

On the side of Opposite Parties :

Nil