The Manager,ICICI Bank,Kollam V/S S.Howlath, W/o. Shanavas, Kalluvila Puthen Veedu
S.Howlath, W/o. Shanavas, Kalluvila Puthen Veedu filed a consumer case on 29 Feb 2008 against The Manager,ICICI Bank,Kollam in the Kollam Consumer Court. The case no is CC/06/338 and the judgment uploaded on 30 Nov -0001.
KOLLAM CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM consumer case(CC) No. CC/06/338
S.Howlath, W/o. Shanavas, Kalluvila Puthen Veedu
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
The Manager,ICICI Bank,Kollam
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
1. K. VIJAYAKUMARAN ACHARI: President 2. RAVI SUSHA: Member 3. VIJYAKUMAR. R: Member
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
By R. VIJAYAKUMAR, MEMBER Complainant filed this complaint to return of possession of Vehicle No.KL2/U 8217 or getting back Rs.1,31,516/- with interest and compensation and cost. The averments in the complainant can be briefly summarized as follows: Complainant had availed a vehicle finance from the opp.party for purchasing an Eicher 1075 commercial vehicle and the finance amount Rs.5,75,000/- The opp.party given DD for that amount to Grand Motors, Kollam the dealer of Eicher Motors on 25.1.2005, blank and signed cheques given by the complainant to the opp.party as security. Vehicle was delivered to complainant. Complainant repaid Rs.1,31,516/- in instalments. The vehicle was in workshop at Ernakulam due to some mechanical defects. Some instalments become due. On 6.5.2002 complainants husband Mr. Shanavas came to the office of opp.party and requested some more time for repayment of instalments. Opp.parties subordinate compelled him to sign some paper and demanded Rs.10,000/- for paying in workshop and getting back vehicle. Complainants husband paid that amount. Complainant arranged due instalments and approached opp.party many times for repayment of dues and getting back possession of vehicle. But the possession of vehicle did not returned back. Opp.party violated argument of hypothication. Hence the complainant filed this complaint for getting relief. The complainant was examined in chief as PW.1 and marked Exts.P1 to P4. Opposite party remained absent. Hence he stands exparte. The point to be determined is whether the complainant deserve relief as prayed for. The complainant could prove her case through the complaint, affidavit, deposition in chief and Exhibits marked. The complainant was heard. On perusal of the exhibits we find that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party. In the result the complaint is allowed, directing the opp.party to return of possession of vehicle No.KL2/U8217 to the complainant receiving the due instalments. The opp.party is also directed to pay Rs.500/- as cost and compensation. The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of this order. Dated this the 29th day of February, 2008. I N D E X List of documents for the complainant P1. - Statement of account. P2. Advocate notice P3. Postal receipt P4. Reply notice
......................K. VIJAYAKUMARAN ACHARI: President ......................RAVI SUSHA: Member ......................VIJYAKUMAR. R: Member
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.