CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.

Present

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President

Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member

                                             Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member

CC No.46/10

Saturday, the 30thday of October, 2010

Petitioner                                              :  P.K. Prasanth,

                                                               Plankoottathil House,

                                                               Padinjattumbhagom Kara,

                                                               Athirampuzha.

                                                              (Adv. K. Santhoshkumar)

                                                        Vs.

Opposite party                                     : The Manager,

                                                               ICIC Bank Ltd.,

                                                               Kottayam.

                                                             (Adv. Lal  K. Joseph)

ORDER

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President

            Case of the petitioner, filed on 11-3-2009, is as follows.

            Petitioner availed a vehicle loan of Rs.7,60,000/- from the opposite party as per the agreed repayment schedule.  The amount is to be remitted upto 10/12/2011.  Petitioner committed defaults in repayment. When petitioner paid Rs, 40,000/- on 13/10/09 and subsequently petitioner remitted Rs.42,300/-.  According to the petitioner altogether he remitted an amount of Rs.3,90,661.  Petitioner is a poor man and the income derived from the vehicle is only means of his livelihood.  If the opposite party interfere with the operation of said vehicle it will cause heavy loss and hardship to the petitioner.  Opposite party is threatening the petitioner that they will interfere with peaceful operation of the vehicle if the amount is not repaid.  According to the petitioner act of the opposite party in threatening to interfere with peaceful operation of the vehicle is an unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. So he prays for a direction to the opposite party to remit the balance amount in monthly installments and direct the opposite party not to interfere the peaceful operation of the vehicle bearing No. KL5Y3172.  Petitioner claims cost of the proceedings.

            Opposite party filed version contenting that the petition is not maintainable.  They admitted the loan transaction.  According to the opposite party  petitioner is a chronic defaulter.  The EMI fixed was Rs.21,153/-.  Whatever the payments made by the petitioner towards the repayment of the loan has been credited in his account properly.  The payment as shown to have been made on 13/10/09 is actually made by the petitioner on 30/10/09.  As per the loan agreement opposite party is legally entitled to recall the loan and to demand and recover the entire loan amount from the petitioner.  Averment of threatening is denied by the opposite party.  According to the opposite party there is no deficiency in service on their part.  They pray for dismissal of the petition with their costs.  Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties.  Ext.A1 to A5 document on the side of the petitioner.  Ext.B1 and B2 document on the side of the opposite party.

Points for determinations are:

i)                    Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

ii)                   Reliefs and costs?

Point No.1

            Admittedly the petitioner is a defaulter in remitting the loan amount.  Petitioner alleges that the act of the opposite party in threatening the petitioner to interfere with peaceful operation of the vehicle KL5Y3172 is a clear deficiency in service.

“Deficiency”-  Deficiency is defined in the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Section, 2(g) as a any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in quality nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law  for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to  any service”.

            Here the petitioner has no case that opposite party acted in violation of the contract between the parties or against any law for the time being in force.  It is settled that in case of continuous default in repayment opposite party, the banker, has the liberty to recall the loan and demand the entire loan amount. Opposite party produced the details of account statement same is marked as Ext.B1.  From Ext.B1 it can be seen that there was huge dues in the loan account of the petitioner.  So in our view the opposite party has every right to seek legal remedies available to the opposite party.  In our view there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. So point No.1 is found accordingly.

Point No.2

            In view of the finding in point no.1 petition is dismissed.  Considering the fact and circumstances of the case no costs and compensation is ordered.

Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30^th day of October, 2010

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President              Sd/-

Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member                                Sd/-

 Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member                               Sd/-

Appendix

Documents of the petitioner

1)      Ext.A1-Copy of R.C. Book

2)       Ext.A2-Copy of repayment schedule

3)      Ext.A3-Receipt dtd 30/10/09

4)      Ext.A4-Receipt dtd 31/12/09

5)      Ext.A5-Receipt dtd 30/1/10

Documents of the opposite party

1)      Ext.B1-Copy of ID card of the petitioner

2)      Ext.B2-Copy of account statement

By Order,

Senior Superintendent.

S/3cs