CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Present
Sri. Bose Augustine, President
Smt. Renu P. Gopalan, Member
CC No. 70/2011
Thursday, the 13th day of March, 2014
Petitioner : Rajan,
S/o. Kuttan,
Kothakulam house,
Puthenpura, Meenadam,
Kottayam.
(Shyamlal S.)
Vs.
Opposite parties : 1) M/s. Shriram Transport
Finance Company Ltd.,
Represented by its Managing Director,
101-105, SHIV Chambers
Sector – II, C.B.D. Belapur,
Navi Mumbai – 400614.
2) Branch Manager,
Kottayam Branch,
M/s. Shriram Transport
Finance Company Ltd. Geetha Commercial Complex,
Near YWCA. M.C. Road, Kottayam
(Adv. R. Ajith)
3) Babu,
Manimalkunnel,
Vazhoor East P.O.
Kodungoor, Kottayam.
(Adv. Sujith S.P.)
O R D E R
Sri. Bose Augustine, President
The case of petitioner filed on 11/03/2011 is as follows.
Petitioner’s vehicle bearing Reg. No. KL-5 Q8171 Tata mini lorry was hypothecated with 1st opposite party and availed loan for Rs.2,35,000/-. And the loan no. is KOTTYO 00220004. And as per the loan agreement the Emi is fixed Rs.38,500/-. According to petitioner he had committed several defaults in the payment of EMI and on 26/02/2010 2nd opposite party renewed the loan. And petitioner correctly remitted the EMI upto 11/05/2010. According to petitioner, 3rd opposite party is the guarantor of the said loan and also the driver of the vehicle. And on 24/09/2010 an officials of 1st and 2nd opposite party approached the 3rd opposite party and informed the 3rd opposite party that they would free from all liabilities if the vehicle is return back. And they prepare a surrender letter and obtain the signature of the 3rd opposite party. And take the vehicle from the 3d opposite party. According to petitioner, he approached the 2nd opposite party to enquire about it and they informed the petitioner that they will sell the vehicle and clear all the dues of the petitioner. And on 10/11/2010, 2nd opposite party sent a notice to petitioner stating that an officer is received for Rs.1,40,000/- for the vehicle if petitioner have any better offer for sale the vehicle, petitioner can intimate within 7 days. According to petitioner, the said notice dated 10/11/2010 was sent on 10/12/2010 and the same was received on 14/12/2010. Petitioner sent a replay on 21/02/2010 to the 2nd opposite party stating that the vehicle shall not be sold and petitioner is ready to sell the vehicle on a higher price. According to petitioner even before the date of sending the demand notice 1st and 2nd opposite party had sold the vehicle at a very lower price. According to petitioner act of 1st and 2nd opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this petition.
First and second opposite parties filed version. According to them, petitioner availed a vehicle loan from the 2nd opposite party on 01/10/2008 by hypothecating his vehicle bearing Reg. No. KL-5/Q8171 Tata mini lorry. And petitioner defaulted EMI as agreed in the hypothecation agreement. And on 26/02/2010 2nd opposite party renewed the payment schedule.
Evenafter, the renewal of the repayment schedule the petitioner defaulted EMI and the vehicle was surrendered. According to 1st and 2nd opposite party for the sale of the vehicle, vehicle was valued through an approved surveyor for an amount of Rs.1,35,000/-. And the vehicle was sold for Rs.1,40,000/- and the sale amount were credited to the loan account of the petitioner and balance amount due as on 31/05/2011 is Rs.2,42,060. According to 1st and 2nd opposite parties petitioner has no authority to seek a relief from this Forum for return of the vehicle which was sold in the year 2010 with the knowledge of the petitioner. According to 1st and 2nd opposite parties, sale of the surrendered vehicle in a irregular loan account was done as per the terms and conditions as agreed on the hypothecation agreement. And 1st and 2nd opposite parties prays dismissal of the petition with their cost.
Notice to 3rd opposite party was served, but 3rd opposite party failed to appear before this Forum.
Points for determinations are
- Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties.
- Relief and cost?
Evidence in this case is consists of the affidavit of petitioner and 1st and 2nd opposite parties. And Ext. A1 to A16 documents and B2 to B3 documents. Opposite parties 1 and 2 filed argument note.
Point No.1
According to the petitioner the hypothecated vehicle surrendered by the 3rd opposite party guarantor, without the consent of the petitioner, was sold by the 1st and 2nd opposite party, without any notice to petitioner, at a lower rate than the prevailing market value, amounts to deficiency in service. Opposite parties contented that the vehicle was sold with proper notice at the prevailing market rate after obtaining valuation from the approved surveyor. Ext.B1 is the statement of account. From the statement of account it can be seen that on 10/01/2011 an amount of Rs.1,40,000/- was shown credited in the account of the petitioner. The specific case of the petitioner is that 3rd opposite party surrendered the vehicle on 24/09/2010. The 2nd opposite party sent a notice dated 10/11/2010 sent on 10/12/2010 and it was received by the petitioner on 14/12/2010. In the notice it is stating that they are going to sell the vehicle for Rs.1,40,000/- and requested the petitioner to intimate his opinion about said offer within 7 days. On 21/12/2010 petitioner sent a lawyers notice stating that petitioner is ready to sell the vehicle for a higher price than the price offered by the opposite parties. The said notice is produced and same is marked as Ext. A13. Ext. B3 is the copy of the loan cum hypothecation agreement. In Ext. B3 as clause 6 it is sated about the right of the opposite party to reposes the hypothecated vehicle. Admittedly the vehicle was surrendered on 24/09/2010. From Ext. B1 it can be seen that the vehicle was sold on 10/01/2011. Petitioner has not adduce any evidence to prove that in between 24/09/2010 to 10/01/2011, the petitioner offered the loan amount. Moreover in between 21/12/2010 (the date shown in Ext.A13) to 10/01/2011 (sale date) the petitioner had not given any quotation for higher rate as shown in the Ext.A13 notice. The opposite parties produced valuation reported prepared by an approved surveyor and said document is marked as Ext.B2. From Ext. B2 it can be seen the market value of the vehicle is assessed as Rs.1,35,000/-. In our view selling of the vehicle higher than the value assessed by the surveyor is just and proper. So there is no deficiency in service can be attributed against the opposite party 1 and 2. Point No.1 is find accordingly.
Point No.2
In view of the finding in Point No.1 petition is dismissed. Considering facts and circumstances of the case, no cost is ordered.
Sri. Bose Augustine, President Sd/-
Smt. Renu P. Gopalan, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Documents of the petitioner
Ext.A1 : Copy of RC book Reg. No. KL-05-Q 8171
Ext.A2 : Original receipt no.88 dtd. 08/01/2000 of Kerala Motor Transport Worker’s
Welfare Fund Board.
Ext.A3 : Receipt dtd. 08/01/2010 from Motor Vehicle Department.
Ext.A4 : Certificate No.R14/2/T/2005/001633/2004 dtd.08/07/2010 from Pollution
under Control Certificate.
Ext.A5 : Photocopy of Goods carriage permit No. P.Gd.5/2304/2008
Ext.A6 : Shriram General Insurance Certificate policy no. 10003/31/10/052131.
Ext.A7 : Photocopy of repayment schedule
Ext.A8 : Series of bills (4 nos.)
Ext.A9 : Renewed repayment schedule dtd.26/02/2010
Ext.A10 : Letter from Babu to The Branch Manage, STFC dtd. 24/09/2010
Ext.A11 : Notice from STFC to Mr. Rajan K.K. dtd. 10/11/2010
Ext.A12 : Postal cover addressed STFC to Mr. Rajan K.K.
Ext.A13 : Lawyers notice (Adv. Shyamlal S.) dtd. 21/12/ 2010
Ext.A14 : Postal receipt dtd. 21/02/2010
Ext.A15 : Acknowledgement card to MD. STFC
Ext.A16 : Photocopy of Notice dtd. 10/02/2011 from STFC to Mr. Rajan & Mr. Babu.
Documents of the petitioner
Ext. B1: Statement of account agreement no. KOTTYO 00220004.
Ext.B2: Valuation Report No. K/1167/VC/10 dtd. 09/11/2010
Ext.B3: Loan cum hypothecation agreement dtd.26/02/2010.
By Order
Senior Superintendent
