IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA
Friday the 22nd day of January, 2022.
Filed on 05.10.2019
Present
- Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar BSc, LL.B (President )
- Smt.P.R Sholy, B.A.L, LLB (Member)
In
CC/No.248/2019
between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri.Vinod Kumar C V The Manager
S/o Vikraman Nair M/s Hinduja Leyland Finance-
Charivukalayil House Company Ltd., 2nd floor,
Kozhuvallor P.O. Ambili Building, Warriam -
Chengannur-689521 Road, Cochin
(Adv. Joseph George)
The Authorised Signatory
M/s Hinduja Leyland Finance-
Company Ltd.,Corporate office
Sardar Pattel Road, Guindy
Chennai.
(Adv. Manjusha for Ops)
O R D E R
SRI. S.SANTHOSH KUMAR (PRESIDENT)
Complaint filed under Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Material averments briefly stated are as follows:-
On 30-11-14 complainant availed a loan of Rs.22 lakhs from the opposite parties with respect to vehicle bearing registration No.KL 30 F 6018 JCB, As per the agreement entered between the parties complainant had to repay the amount within 48 months starting from 15-1-15 and the last date for final payment was on 15-12-18. The total amount payable including interest was Rs.28,07,200/- @ 58493/-for each installment. On the 48th month the principle amount was Rs.45843/- and the interest was Rs.12,650/-.
2. Complainant was almost regular in making the repayment. He is the driver cum owner of JCB and this is his livelihood. However complainant failed to remit certain installments in time due to the climatic condition and the flood occurred during the month of 2018.
3. Complainant paid the last installment of Rs.1,20,000/- on 30-3-19 at SBI, Kozhuvalloor Branch and it was entered in the books of account on 4-4-19. Thereafter on 15-6-19 complainant informed the opposite parties that the balance payable is Rs.72,050/-. However after discussions with the 2nd opposite party on 16-6-19 1st opposite party demanded an amount of Rs.1,72,750/- instead of 72,050/- for issuing NOC. Complainant had already remitted Rs.27,35,150/- towards the hypothecation amount for Rs.22,000/- availed by him. The balance amount payable is only Rs.72,750/- and he is ready to pay the same. The demand of 1st opposite party for payment of Rs.1,00,000/- as penal interest is illegal and they have no authority to collect penal interest because interest was calculated at flat rate. Hence the complaint is filed for a direction to the opposite parties to collect an amount of Rs.72,050/- as the balance amount payable. Direction may also be given to issue no objection certificate for cancellation of hypothecation in the RC book. Direction may be given to opposite parties to produce all the accounts for settling the loan account as on the date of filing of the complaint amicably without charging any penal interest or other hidden charges.
4. Opposite parties filed a joint version mainly contenting as follows:-
The complaint is filed with distorted facts to mislead this Commission. The details of vehicle, loan amount, contract date, 1st and last date of installments and tenure are true but the interest rate stated is not correct. The complainant shall repay the loan amount as per the agreed terms ie, 6.6% of interest (11.99 IRR). Opposite parties had charged only 6.6% of interest. Complainant was not making regular payments and failed to remit installments.
5. The last installment paid by complainant was on 04-04-19. The complainant demanded NOC. Opposite parties informed him about the balance repayment and after discussions he was reluctant to repay the balance amount towards settlement of loan account. Complainant has to pay an amount of Rs.8,68,842/-. In default of repayment opposite parties is having the right to realize the loan amount from the assets of the complainant. Complainant had paid Rs.26,13,652/- towards the loan account. The balance amount payable as per the agreed terms is Rs.8,68,842/- including the earlier loan (Child loan) on the same rate. Complainant had to repay the loan amount as per agreed terms. There is no deficiency of service and the intention of the complainant is only to drag the matter and is trying to delay the repayment. Hence the complaint may be dismissed with cost.
6. On the above pleadings following points were raised for consideration:-
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties as alleged?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get an order that the balance amount payable to the opposite parties is only Rs.72,050/- as per the agreement?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get a direction to the opposite parties to issue NOC for cancellation of hypothecation in the RC book?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get a direction against the opposite parties to produce all the accounts for settling the loan account as prayed for?
- Reliefs and cost?
7. Evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A7from the side of the complainant. Opposite parties have not adduced any evidence either oral or documentary.
8. Point Nos.1 to 4:-
PW1 is the complainant. He filed an affidavit in tune with the complaint and marked Ext.A1to A7.
9. PW1, the complainant on 30.11.14 availed a loan of Rs.22 lakhs from the opposite parties with respect to his vehicle by executing the agreement. As per the agreement he has to repay the amount as 48 monthly installments starting from 15.01.15 and ending on 15.12.18. The flat interest of the loan amount was Rs.6,07,200/- and the total amount payable was Rs.28,07,200/-. According to PW1 he has paid a total amount of Rs.27,35,150/- and the balance payable is only Rs.72,050/-. When he contacted the opposite parties along with the said amount they demanded Rs.1 lakh more for issuing NOC. Hence the complaint is filed for giving a direction to the opposite parties to issue NOC by collecting Rs.72,050/- from the opposite parties. Opposite parties filed a joined version admitting the loan transaction. However according to them PW1 had paid only Rs.26,13,652/- and the balance amount payable is Rs.8,62,842/-. They had contended that complainant had taken another loan (as child loan) with respect to the same vehicle and it is also pending. According to them there is no deficiency of service and the intention of the complainant is only to drag the matter to delay the payment. Complainant got examined as PW1 and Ext. A1 to A7 were marked. Opposite parties though filed a proof affidavit on 19.11.21 the witness was not available for cross examination.
10. The fact that PW1 availed a loan of Rs.22 lakhs for his JCB by executing an agreement is not in dispute. PW1 admitted that the total amount repayable was Rs.28,07,200/- including interest and it is to be repaid by 48 equal monthly installments and the last date of payment was 15.12.18. Admittedly the entire amount was not repaid on 15.12.18 and this complaint is filed on 05.10.19 for giving a direction to the opposite parties to accept an amount of Rs.72,050/- and issue no objection certificate. During cross examination PW1 admitted that till 2017 he had regularly repaid the EMI and the due date was 15th of every month. However from Ext.A2 statement it is seen that there was no regular repayment as claimed by PW1. PW1 admitted that if there is delay in repayment he is bound to pay additional interest. Admittedly the last date of payment of was on 15.12.18 and after about 4 months he paid Rs.1,20,000/-. PW1 also admitted that he could not repay the amount within 48 months as per the agreement. He has produced Ext.A1 and A3 to A7 receipts to show that he had paid certain amounts and it was not accounted. But it is seen that Ext.A1 and A3 are one and the same. Ext.A1 is the copy and Ext.A3 is the original. An amount of Rs.1,20,000/- paid on 04.04.19 is seen accounted in Ex.tA2 statement. From Ext.A2 statement it is seen that PW1 had paid a total amount of Rs.27,35,150/-. PW1 calculated that only Rs.72,050/- is to be paid as balance and so on payment of the same he is entitled to get the NOC. However as stated earlier as per the agreement the last date of payment was on 15.12.18 to close the loan. Admittedly the entire amount was not paid on 15.12.18.
11. As admitted by PW1 during cross examination there was no regular repayment though the date of payment was 15th of every month. PW1 denied the 2nd loan which was stated in the version as child loan. According to opposite parties an amount of Rs.8,68,842/- is outstanding including the child loan. Though the legal officer and power of attorney holder of the opposite parties filed a proof affidavit on 19.11.21 he did not enter the witness box to prove his case on oath. However during cross examination PW1 admitted that as per the terms of agreement he is bound to pay additional interest for delayed payment. From Ext.A2 it is also seen that certain cheques were bounced. So from the evidence of PW1 it can be seen that he could not repay the amount as agreed by him. As per the agreement the last date of payment was on 15.12.18 and the entire amount was not paid. The complaint is seen filed on 05.10.19 with a contention that only an amount of Rs.72,050/- is due to the opposite parties. Since PW1 is bound to pay additional interest for the delayed payments the said contention appears to be not true. However both the parties have not produced the loan agreement to show the terms and conditions. Since PW1 admitted that he is bound to pay additional interest for delayed payment and so that the loan amount was not closed on 15.12.18 as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, no order can be passed in favour of PW1. PW1 could not prove that there is deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties since he himself had violated the terms of agreement by not repaying the amount as per the agreement.
12. PW1 is seeking a direction to the opposite parties to issue no objection certificate for cancellation of hypothecation in the RC book of the vehicle. Admittedly the loan is still pending and so no direction can be given to the opposite parties to issue NOC for cancellation of hypothecation. From the above discussion it is pellucid that the contention of PW1 that only an amount of Rs.72,050/- is due from him appears to be not correct. Admittedly he had to pay Rs.28,07,200/- including interest if the entire amount was paid on or before 15.12.18. Since it was no complied as admitted by PW1 during cross examination he is bound to pay additional interest. In such circumstances the contention of PW1 that he is entitled to get a NOC on payment of Rs.72,050/- appears to be not correct. In such circumstances no order can be passed in favour of PW1 and no direction can be given to the opposite parties to issue the no objection certificate after collecting to Rs.72,050/- and so these points are found against the complainant.
13. Point No.5
In the result complaint is dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their respective cost.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 22nd day of January, 2022.
Sd/-Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar (President)
Sd/-Smt. P.R Sholy (Member)
Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Vinodkumar.C.V (Complainant)
Ext.A1 - Copy of RC Book
Ext.A2 - Statement of Account
Ext.A3 - Copy of Pay in Slip
Ext.A4 - Pay in slip dtd. 30/3/2019
Ext.A5 -` Pay in slip dtd.4/4/2019
Ext.A6 - Pay in slip dtd. 31/3/2018
Ext.A7 - Pay in slip dtd.1/2/2018.
Evidence of the opposite parties:-Nil
//True Copy ///
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Assistant Registrar
Typed by:- Sa/-
Compared by:-
