DATE OF FILING : 10.03.2010
BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI Dated this the 28th day of April, 2010
Present: SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER C.C No.65/2010 Between Complainant : Mathew S/o Ulahannan, Vettuchirayil House, Manippara P.O, Karimban, Idukki District. (By Adv: C.K.Babu) And Opposite Parties : 1. The Manager, Tata Motors Finance Limited, S.L Plaza, Ground Floor, Palarivattom P.O, Ernakulam , Kochi – 25. 2. The Manager, Tata Motors Finance Limited, Housing Complex, Kattappana – 685 508. O R D E R SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)
Complainant's son-in-law Mr.Shibu Abraham was the owner and in possession of the Tata Motors SE 1613 vehicle No.KL-06/C-7372. He transferred the possession of the vehicle to the complainant on 2.11.2005 and now the complainant is managing the vehicle. The complainant took possession of the vehicle for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment. The son-in-law of the complainant Mr.Shibu Abraham had availed a loan from the Ist opposite party for an amount of Rs.7,17,000/- plus incidental charges on 28.05.2005 by virtue of a contract. As per the terms of transfer of possession of the vehicle between the complainant and Shibu Abraham, the complainant had undertaken that he would be remitting the loan instalments without any fail. So the complainant remitted an amount of Rs.5.5 lakhs in the above account until 2008. As per the terms of the agreement, the Ist opposite party is liable to renew the insurance periodically. The opposite party did not renew the insurance from 2008 onwards. On 28.12.2008 the vehicle met with an accident. Since the Ist opposite party did not renew the insurance properly, the complainant did not get any benefits from the insurance company. So the repairing of the vehicle was delayed. The complainant spent Rs.1,52,864/- for the repairing of the vehicle. An additional amount of Rs.10,000/- was expended for transportation. The complainant sustained a loss of income of Rs.50,000/- due to the delay caused for repairing the vehicle. During early 2009 the complainant was admitted in hospital consequent to heart attack. Due to his illness and the accident of the vehicle, the entire repayment schedule was dislocated and hence the complainant could not remit the instalments. So there is arrears in repayment. Inspite of repeated demands and requests, the opposite party did not so far issued the statement of account and hence the complainant was unaware of the balance outstanding. Now the vehicle is ready for plying on the road from 27.02.2010 onwards. The 2nd opposite party approached the complainant on 28.02.2010 demanding an amount of Rs.10 lakhs and further threatened the complainant with dare consequence unless the entire outstanding is cleared in 5 days. Again on 3.03.2010 the 2nd opposite party telephoned the complainant and demanded the due instalments, penal interest, cheque bouncing charges, travelling expenses and service charges within 5 days. The 2nd opposite party further demanded the vehicle for custody but the complainant was not inclined to hand over the possession of the vehicle. Though the complainant requested to enlarge the time for repayment of the due instalments, the 2nd opposite party did not heed to it. The complainant requested for a statement of account. Inspite of repeated demands the opposite parties resisted it raising flimsy reasons. The opposite parties are not in the habit of issuing any receipts for any payment. The 2nd opposite party further threatened that they would take the vehicle into their possession by force. So the complainant is not able to ply the vehicle through the road. The act of the opposite parties are illegal and unfair. So the petition is filed for restraining from the opposite parties from forcibly taking possession of the vehicle from the custody of the complainant and also from demanding unnecessary exorbitant amount.
3. The opposite party were absent and called exparte. 4. 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?
5. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 and P2 marked on the side of the complainant.
6. The POINT :- The petition is filed for getting the repairing charges of the vehicle which met with an accident and also for compensation. The complainant was examined as PW1. PW1 purchased a vehicle No.KL-06C-7372 Tata Motors SE 1613 lorry from his son-in-law. Ext.P1 is the copy of the RC Book of the vehicle. The vehicle was having a hire purchase loan from the opposite party for Rs.7,17,000/- and it was repaying promptly by the complainant as per the agreement between the complainant and his son-in-law. On 28.12.2008 the vehicle met with an accident and Rs.1,52,864/- was spent by the complainant for the repair of the vehicle. An amount of Rs.10,000/- was additionally expended for transportation. The complainant was admitted in the hospital in early 2009 due to heart attack and so the complainant was not able to repay the loan amount promptly because of the illness and due to the accident. So the loan became due. The opposite parties threatened the complainant and also demanded exorbitant amount when the loan amount became due. On 3.03.2010, they have demanded due instalments, penal interest, cheque bouncing charges, travel expenses and service charges within 5 days. Otherwise they threatened PW1 that they would take possession of the vehicle forcibly. So the complainant is unable to ply the vehicle through the road and sustained a loss of Rs.1,000/- per day. The opposite party never supplied the statement of account even repeated demands. It is admitted by the complainant that he was not able to pay the loan instalments because of the illness and due to the accident of the vehicle. Ext.P2 bills show that the repairing cost of the vehicle comes around Rs.1,52,864/-. The opposite party demanded the due instalments and also exorbitant amount such as penal interest, cheque bouncing charges etc. They also threatened the complainant that they would take possession of the vehicle if the amount is not paid within 5 days. As per the complainant, he was paying the loan instalments promptly to the opposite party before the due date. But the opposite party did not renew the insurance from 2008 onwards. PW1 had remitted an amount of Rs.5.5 lakhs till 2008. But there is no evidence produced by PW1 to show that he had paid any amount to the opposite party. Not even a single bill produced by the complainant to show the same. The complainant submitted that the opposite party is not issuing receipts for the payment. If it was like that the complainant can pay the instalments through his bank account. But the bank account statement also not produced by the complainant to show the same. Any payment done through cheque leaf was also not produced by the complainant. The owner of the vehicle is Mr.Shibu Abraham as per Ext.P1 RC book. But there is no agreement produced by the complainant to show that the vehicle has been purchased by the complainant from the said Shibu Abraham. So the complainant is not a party to this litigation. The complainant argued that the opposite party is liable to renew the insurance policy periodically. The complainant or the RC owner never produced any evidence to show that they have paid any amount to the opposite party in the loan account to pay the insurance premium. So we think that if the vehicle was using by the complainant, the complainant ought to have enquired about the insurance policy of the vehicle. The complainant made dues in the loan account so the opposite party did not renew the insurance. Without paying the vehicle loan instalments, the opposite party is not liable to compensate for the loss sustained for the repairing of the vehicle.
The complainant made dues in the loan instalments only because the vehicle met with an accident and he was admitted in hospital because of heart attack during the early month of 2009. But there is no evidence to show that the complainant was promptly paying the instalments upto 2009. But the opposite party is not having any right to take forcible possession of the vehicle without due process of law eventhough the complainant made arrears in the vehicle loan account. Hence the petition partially allowed. The opposite parties are restrained from forcefully taking possession of the vehicle, lorry bearing No.KL-06C-7372 from the custody of the complainant without due process of law. The opposite parties are also directed to give statement of accounts of the vehicle loan to the complainant within 7 days from the receipt of this order and Rs.2,000/- as costs of this petition within one moth 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 28th day of April, 2010 Sd/- SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)
Sd/- I agree SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER) Sd/- I agree SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)
APPENDIX Depositions : On the side of Complainant : PW1 - V.U.Mathew On the side of Opposite Party : Nil Exhibits: On the side of Complainant: Ext.P1 - Copy of the RC Book of the vehicle Ext.P2 - Photocopy of Bill dated 27.02.2010 for Rs.1,52,864/- issued by M/s.Kurisinkal Auto Body Builders, Mudavoor P.O, Vazhappilly, Muvattupuzha On the side of Opposite Party : Nil
| | [HONORABLE Sheela Jacob] Member[HONORABLE Laiju Ramakrishnan] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE Bindu Soman] Member | | 
