DATE OF FILING : 25.10.2011
BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI
Dated this the 29th day of November, 2011
Present:
SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT
SMT.BINDHU SOMAN MEMBER
C.C No.221/2011
Between
Complainant : K.P. Vijayan,
Kallurumbil House,
Alpara P.O.,
Idukki District - 685606.
And
Opposite Party : The Manager,
Mahindra Finance,
Adimali,
Adimali P.O.,
Idukki District.
(By Adv: Saji Augustine)
O R D E R
SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)
The complainant purchased a Tata Indigo car bearing Reg. No.KL6E-4230, from the Tata showroom, Kattappana. The vehicle was having a loan of Rs.3,40,000/-, which was arranged by the opposite party. The repayment of the loan was in 48 monthly instalments with an EMI of Rs.9,600/- each. The copy of the title deed of the complainant's property and copy of the tax receipt were given as security for the same. 19 cheque leaves were given as security to the office of the opposite party which was issued from the Federal Bank, Karimban Branch. A telephone call from the opposite party's office at Adimali was received by the complainant in the month of May, 2011, that the cheque issued by the complainant was bounced and the complainant was instructed to pay Rs.800/- as cheque bounce charge and also the interest. So that the complainant approached the opposite party office and assured that the cheque of the complainant was not at all bounced and the bank account and pass book were also shown to the opposite party. So the opposite party avoided the interest and told that the cheque was passed through the account. The same was again repeated in the months of June and July, while the complainant was having a balance of Rs.34,360/- on his account. Because of the act of the opposite party, the complainant decided to sold out his vehicle and it was sold for an amount of Rs.2,80,000/- with a low market value. The opposite party has charged Rs.2,41,000/- for closing the finance of the vehicle. While the complainant perused the details of
(cont....2)
- 2 -
the receipt issued by the opposite party, it is written that the instalment Rs.2,38,004/-, penal interest Rs.1,032/-, cheque return charges Rs.1,500/- and travelling expenses Rs.464/- were accounted in the receipt. While the complainant enquired the opposite party about this, they told that it was the account kept by them. There was no due in the loan, but the opposite party deliberately cheated the complainant by charging hike interest. So an amount of Rs.2,996/- has been charged as interest and penal interest from the complainant. The complainant several times contacted the opposite party for getting back the same and also given written complaint for the same. The amount was not at all returned to the complainant. So this petition is filed for getting compensation in the tune of Rs.50,000/- including the loss caused in the resale of the vehicle.
2. Notice was duly served to the opposite party and was absent and so made exparte.
3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?
4. No oral evidence adduced by the complainant and Exts.P1 to P7(series) marked on the side of the complainant. Heard.
5. The POINT:- As per the complainant, he purchased a Tata Indigo Car by availing a loan of Rs.3,40,000/- from the opposite party and the EMI for the same was 48 monthly instalments of Rs.9,600/- each. 19 number of cheque leaves were given for advance payment of the loan. Including the cheque leaves, copy of the original title deed and tax receipt of the complainant's property were given as security. The complainant is repaying the EMIs promptly, but the opposite party informed in the month of May, 2011 that the cheque was bounced. So the complainant approached the opposite party and showed the details of the bank account and pass book of the complainant which is having sufficient fund in his account and so that the opposite party was satisfied and no amount has been charged from the complainant. But this was repeated in the months of June and July, while the complainant was having a balance of Rs.34,360/- in his account. Because of the act of the opposite party, the complainant constrained to sold out the vehicle with a low market value of Rs.2,80,000/- and Ext.P5 is the sale agreement created for the same. The bank statement issued from the Federal Bank for the complainant's account from 1.1.2011 to 22.8.2011 is produced and marked as Ext.P2. While the complainant closed his loan account on 1.8.2011, the opposite party charged Rs.2,38,400/- for 27 instalments, penal interest of Rs.1,032/-, cheque return charges Rs.1,500/- and travelling expenses Rs.464/-. A total amount of Rs.2,996/- was
(cont....3)
- 3 -
charged in excess than the entitled rate. Ext.P1 is the copy of the receipt issued by the opposite party at the time of closing the loan. The complainant revealed the same only after perusing the receipt at home. So the complainant several times approached the opposite party for getting back the amount and the opposite party denied the same. Only after payment of the same, the NOC was issued.
On perusing the bank statement produced by the complainant from the Federal Bank, from 1.1.2011 to 22.8.2011, it is very clear that the complainant was having sufficient balance in his bank account. The balance in the account was more than the EMI of the opposite party and it was decreased only in 4 times as per the account. But the opposite party several times informed the complainant that the cheque was bounced, but there was no memmo produced by the opposite party to show that the cheque was bounced. So the complainant approached the opposite party office and showed the correct statement of account of his bank balance and pass book and so that the opposite party was satisfied that the complainant was having sufficient fund in the account. But again the opposite party charged an amount of Rs.2,996/- from the complainant while he closed his loan account after the sale of his vehicle. Ext.P1 receipt issued by the opposite party clearly shows that Rs.1,032/- has been charged as penal interest, Rs.1,500/- as cheque return charges and Rs.464/- as travelling expenses. Not even a single time, any of the cheque produced by him was bounced and never made any dues in the loan account. These matters are also not at all challenged by the opposite party. So it is a gross deficiency from the part of the opposite party to charge such a hike interest from the complainant without any reason. So the opposite party is entitled to return the amount of Rs.2,996/- charged from the complainant.
Another contention of the complainant is that the complainant was constrained to sold out the vehicle only because of the act of the opposite party. But there is no evidence to show that the opposite party charged hike interest before issuing Ext.P1 receipt, so that the complainant was constrained to sold out the vehicle in a low market value. The opposite party has charged hike interest only on 1.8.2011, while the loan account was closed. Before that the complainant has not paid any amount excess than the EMI and no evidence produced to show that the hike amount charged by the opposite party than the EMI, while the loan account was pending. So we think that the contention of the complainant is not at all sustainable. In the complaint, it is also stated that the complainant has caused mental agony and financial loss because of the act of the opposite party that they charged excess amount from the complainant. But there is no evidence produced by the complainant to show the same. It may be true that the complainant may approached the opposite party office several times for getting back the excess amount paid by him. The opposite party several times intimated the complainant that the cheque was bounced. But the
(cont....4)
- 4 -
complainant was having sufficient fund in his account while the intimation was given, and it may cause mental agony to the complainant. These matters were not at all challenged by the opposite party in anywhere. So we fix Rs.2,000/- as compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant.
Hence the petition allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.2,996/- which is the excess amount charged from the complainant without any reason and Rs.2,000/- as compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant and also Rs.1,000/- as cost of this petition, within 30 days 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 29th day of November, 2011
Sd/-
SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)
Sd/-
SMT. BINDHU SOMAN (MEMBER)
APPENDIX
Depositions :
Nil.
Exhibits :
On the side of the Complainant :
Ext.P1 - Copy of the receipt issued by the opposite party at the time of
closing the loan.
Ext.P2 - The statement of account issued from the Federal Bank Ltd.,
Karimpan dated 25.8.2011.
Ext.P3 - The statement of account issued from the Federal Bank Ltd.,
Karimpan dated 3.11.2011.
Ext.P4 - The NOC of the vehicle.
Ext.P5 - The sale agreement of the vehicle dated 29.7.2011.
Ext.P6 - The finance scheme of the vehicle loan.
Ext.P7(series) - Cheque leaves of the complainant – 2 Nos.
On the side of the Opposite Party :
Nil.
