T.V.Chandran filed a consumer case on 17 Jul 2008 against The Manager in the Kasaragod Consumer Court. The case no is C.C.179/2005 and the judgment uploaded on 30 Nov -0001.
Kerala
Kasaragod
C.C.179/2005
T.V.Chandran - Complainant(s)
Versus
The Manager - Opp.Party(s)
Rajagopala.A.
17 Jul 2008
ORDER
. IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KASARAGOD consumer case(CC) No. C.C.179/2005
T.V.Chandran
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
The Manager M/s Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
1. K.T.Sidhiq 2. P.P.Shymaladevi 3. P.Ramadevi
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
D.o.F; 15/11/05 D.o.O : 17/7/08 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KASARAGOD CC.NO.179/2005 Dated this, the 17th day of July 2008 PRESENT: SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER SMT.P.P.SHYMALADEVI : MEMBER T.V.Chandran, S/o A.V.Ambu, R/at Kadappuram of R.C.Road, Ullal of Mangalore,South Canara,Karnataka, ; Complainant Now at Deepa House, Perlol village, Neeleshwar Po, Neeleshawar. (Adv.Rajagopala) 1. The manager, M/s Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd, No.25, K.H.Road,Mangalam Chambers, 3rd Floor,Bangalore-27. : Opposite parties 2. M/s Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd, 2nd Floor,Ram Bhavan Complex, Kodialbail,Mangalore. (Adv. Mahesh) ORDER SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ: PRESIDENT: The case of the complainant T.V.Chandran is that the opposite parties M/s Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd has illegally detained a sum of Rs.30,000/- out of the insurance benefits due to him from the New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Therefore the complaint is filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of M/s Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. 2. Opposite parties M/sAshok Leyland Finance Co.Ltd, Bangalore and Mangalore branches jointly filed version and contended that Mr.T.V.Chandran availed a hire purchase loan from them towards the purchase of a Maruthi Zen car and the same was stolen and the insurance claim was settled. But Chandran was not paying the hire charges regularly and 4 cheques issued by complainant were returned for want of fund in his account and hence they appropriated Rs.30,000/- from his insurance benefits. 3. Chandran has produced Exts.A1 to A5 in support of his claim. Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd produced Exts.B1 to B5 and called for X1 in support of their contention. The counsels for both sides were argued at length. The documents were perused carefully. 4. Learned counsel for T.V.chandran has argued the matter in his eloquent manner and he has submitted that as per Ext.B1 H.P. agreement M/s Ashok Leyland Finance Co.Ltd is the owner of the vehicle and Chandran is only a hirer . Hence after the theft of the car from his custody the M/s Ashok Leyland Finance Co.Ltd ought not have been collected any amount from him as the subject matter of hire purchase was not in existence and the hirer has paid the remaining instalments out of ignorance and virtually collecting all the instalment monies as per Ext.B1, the deduction of Rs.30,000/- further from his insurance benefits amounts to unjust enrichment. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for M/s Ashok Leyland Finance Co.Ltd has vividly explained the details of cheques bounced issued by Chandran towards the hire purchase instalments and according to him Rs.50176/- is due from him. Eventhen they only collected Rs.30,000/- from the insurance benefits considering the fact that the vehicle was not in existence with the hirer Chandran. He has also invited our attention to various terms and conditions of the HP agreement and the condition 15 stipulates that the Hirer shall during the continuance of the agreement indemnify the owner against the loss or damage to the chassis/vehicle/ machinery/equipment or any other part thereof, or running the vehicle or otherwise whatever causes arising and whether or not such loss or damage results from the negligence of the hirer. So according to the learned counsel for M/s Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd the payment made even after the theft of the subject matter is legal and nothing prevents them from collecting the hire monies. This being the situation we could not find out any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and therefore the complaint is dismissed. However in the circumstances opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.2000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of order towards the cost of these proceedings. Sd/ Sd/ Sd/ MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Exts: A1-copy of FIR A2-19/9/05-lawyer notice A3&A4-postal acknowledgments A5-receipts(series 25 Nos) B1-HP agreement B2-&B4-cheques B3&B5-Memorandom X1- copy of register of dishonoured cheque (page 26,31,32&34) Sd/ Sd/ Sd/ MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT eva/ /Forwarded by Order/ Senior Superintendent