DATE OF FILING : 25.3.2010.

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 29^th day of April, 2010

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.76/2010

Between

Complainant : Retheesh C. Nair,

S/o Chandrasekharan,

Block No.386, Thookkupalam,

Kallar – 685 552

Idukki District.

And

Opposite Parties : 1. The Manager,

Tata Motors Finance Ltd.,

Shopping Complex,

Kattappana – 685 509

Idukki District.

2. The General Manager,

Tata Motors Finance Ltd.,

Ground Floor, Rameswar Tower,

Shop No.4 & 5, Shiboli Road,

Boriwili (w), Mumbai – 400 092.

3. The Chief Executive,

Tata Motors Ltd., D.G.P. House,

415 Floor Old Prabhadevi Road,

Mumbai – 400 025.

4. The Chief Executive,

Tata Motors Ltd.,

2^nd Floor, Gyan Sadana College

Service Road, Post – Vagil – Estate,

Thane – 400 607.

O R D E R

SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHANAN (PRESIDENT)

The complainant purchased a Tata 407 lorry in the month of February,2007. The cost of the vehicle was Rs.5,42,000/-. The complainant spent another amount of Rs.16,800/- for the registration etc. of the vehicle. The complainant availed a loan from the opposite party, at the time of purchase of the vehicle. The copy of the title deed of his father's property and the tax receipt of the property were given as security to the 1^st opposite party, at the time of availing the vehicle loan. 20 numbers of cheque leaves signed by the complainant

of Idukki District Co-operative Bank were also given as security for the same. After 5 months, the representatives of the opposite party approached the complainant and directed to pay Rs.15,000/- to the opposite party company,

otherwise they would take the possession of the vehicle. The complainant paid the amount on 29.6.2007 and also Rs.1,15,000/- in several instalments. Again the opposite party threatened the complainant stating that the vehicle will be repossessed and so the complainant approached the opposite party bank for settlement. The opposite parties directed to surrender the vehicle to the opposite party. As per the direction of the opposite party, on 17.11.2008, the vehicle was surrendered to the opposite party and they assured that no further payment is needed in the future. If there is any balance amount, after the sale of the vehicle, that will be released to the complainant. The receipt for the surrender of the vehicle was received from Mumbai office to the complainant after 2 months. At the time of the surrender of the vehicle, the vehicle fetch a market value of Rs.4,65,000/-. After that several notices were received by the complainant from the opposite party stating that there was a due in the loan account. He also revealed that some cheque leaves were also produced by the opposite party for encashment. So the petition is filed for getting a direction to close the loan account of the complainant's vehicle loan.
 

2. The opposite party was 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. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts. P1 to P3 marked on the side of the complainant.

5. The POINT :- The complainant purchased a Tata mini lorry 407, by availing vehicle loan from the opposite party. After when the vehicle loan become due, the complainant surrendered the vehicle as per the assurance that no payment is needed in the future. But again the opposite party proceeded against the complainant. The complainant was examined as PW1. Ext.P1 (series) is the receipt for payment of the vehicle loan for Rs.1,13,200. Ext.P3 is the contract details of the loan. When the loan became due, the opposite party directed to surrender the vehicle to the opposite party. So the vehicle was surrendered on 17.11.2008. 20 numbers of cheque leaves signed by the complainant were given as security for the same. And the property of the complainant's father was also given as security. At the time of surrender of the vehicle, the vehicle fetch a market value of Rs.4,65,000/- and the opposite party told that after the resale of the vehicle, the balance amount will be given to the complainant. The opposite party neither paid any balance amount to the complainant, nor close the account of loan. So again notices were forwarded to the complainant for further proceedings and cheque leaves were also produced before the bank for encashment.
 

Ext.P1 (series) bills shows that the complainant was repaying the loan amount and as per the Ext.P1 (series), Rs.1,13,200/- has been remitted to the opposite party. PW1 stated that he had paid Rs.1,13,200/- to the opposite party bank. The vehicle was purchased in February, 2007, as per Ext.P3, the loan was disbursed on 10.2.2007. The same was surrendered before the opposite party on 17.11.2008 as per the settlement letter made by the complainant and opposite party. Ext.P2 is the receipt issued from the Tata Motors Ltd, Mumbai for the receipt of surrender of the vehicle. No date is mentioned in Ext.P2 surrender letter. So we think that the date mentioned by the complainant for surrendering the vehicle may be true and the vehicle may fetch a market value of Rs.4,65,000/- at the time of surrendering. The invoiced amount of the vehicle is Rs.5,21,463/- as per the opposite party, but as per the complainant, the amount of the vehicle was Rs.5,42,000/-. The complainant spent an amount of Rs.16,800/- for registration of the vehicle to the opposite party. The complainant used the vehicle for 7 months, but he paid Rs.1,13,000/- to the opposite party.

These matters are not challenged by the opposite party. So the loss caused to the opposite party due to the non-payment of the loan may have realised from the resale of the vehicle. So it is not appropriate to proceed against the complainant for the realisation of the amount again. The opposite party should return the cheque leaves issued as security for the loan amount. So we think that it is not proper to proceed against the complainant again for the loan availed by the complainant for his vehicle. The complainant is entitled to get the cheque leaves which were given as security.
 

Hence the petition allowed. The opposite parties are restrained from further proceedings against the complainant and his property for the due of the vehicle loan which have been availed by the complainant for purchase of the vehicle No.KL-37-1483, Tata 407 lorry. The opposite parties are also directed to return the cheque leaves issued by the complainant at the time of availing the loan. Rs.500/- is awarded as cost of this petition within one month from 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 29^th day of April, 2010.

Sd/-

SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHANAN (PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

SMT. SHEELA JACOB (MEMBER)

Sd/-

SMT. BINDU SOMAN (MEMBER)
 

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1 - Retheesh C. Nair.

On the side of the Opposite party :

Nil.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 (series) - Receipts for the payment of the vehicle loan issued from the opposite party (5 numbers).

Ext.P2 - Surrender letter from the customer for the surrender of the vehicle which is signed by the complainant.

Ext.P3 - The contract details of the loan, dated 9.5.2008.

On the side of the Opposite party :

Nil.