SRI.R. VIJAYAKUMAR, MEMBER.
The complaint is filed seeking refund of excess amount received from the complainant, for getting direction against the 2nd opp.party not to conduct sale of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-02/U 549 and to produce true details of remittance made by the complainant.
The complainant’s case is that the opp.parties illegally seized the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL.02/U549. Even though the complainant was ready to pay the balance due amount to release the vehicle, the opp.parties were not amenable to the requests of the complainant to give statement of accounts.
The complainant had purchased a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-02/U 549 from the 3rd opp.party with the financial assistance of Rs.50,000/- by the 2nd opp.party. The complainant had paid Rs.15,000/- to the 3rd opp.party. The 2nd opp.party collected 36 blank cheque leaves from the complainant’s son SM.Jayakumar. Repayment schedule was fixed as 36 instalments of Rs1955/- each. The complainant defaulted in the payment of some of the installments. On 16..9..2005 the 2nd opp.party seized the vehicle without resorting due process of law. When the complainant approached the 2nd opp.party demanded Rs.10,000/- for releasing the vehicle. Previously the complainant had paid instalments of Rs.5000/- on 2..6..05 and Rs.6050/- on 2..7..2005 to the 2nd opp.party. As per the demand of 2nd opp.party the complainant subsequently remitted Rs.10,000/- for the release of the vehicle. But the opp.party neither released the vehicle nor given any receipt to the complainant. On the contrary, the 2nd opp.party demanded more amount. The complainant requested to issue statement of accounts. But the opp.parties were not willing to give any details from their institution. On 11..1..2006 the 2nd opp.party demanded Rs.20,000/- towards installment dues, default interest, Penal charges etc. On 1..12..2006, the 2nd opp.party issued a Registered Notice to the complainant calling upon the complainant to remit dues to close the account otherwise they will sell the vehicle.
The acts of forceful seizure without resorting due process of law and non-issuance of statement of accounts amounts to deficiency in service from the part of opp.party. Hence the complainant filed the complaint for reliefs.
The opp.parties 1 and 2 filed version contenting the allegations of the complainant. It is true that the complainant availed a vehicle loan from the 2nd opp.party for Rs.50,000/- . The complainant agreed to repay the amount with 36 equal instalments at the rate of Rs.1955/- each. After taking loan, the complainant paid total amount of Rs.9055/- only in 3 instalments and never paid Rs.6050/- on 2..7..2005 or Rs.10,000/- at any date. The complainant surrendered the vehicle to the 2nd opp.party due to the inability to remit dues of the said Loan and the Motor cycle was sold in Auction on 30..12..2006. There is no deficiency in service from the part of opp.party. The complaint also is not maintainable in the Forum as per the decision of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Tata Finance Ltd. V/s. Marjah Hassan. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Even though sufficient opportunity has been given, the 3rd opp.party remained absent and hence set exparte.
From the side of the complainant, PW.1 was examined and Exts. P1 to P4 marked.
The opp.parties has no oral or documentary evidence.
Heard Both sides:
The points that would arise for consideration are:
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opp.parties?
2. Reliefs and costs ?
POINTS 1 AND 2
Admittedly the complainant had availed a vehicle Loan for Rs.50,000/- from the 2nd opp.party and defaulted in repayment. The seizure of the vehicle by the opp.party 2 also is admitted.
The contention of the complainant is that the 2nd opp.party ought to have resorted the legal proceeding for repossessing the vehicle, even if there is any default from the part of the complainant. The opp.party also had admitted the fact that the vehicle was seized by them.
According to the opp.party the complainant surrendered the vehicle as the complainant is unable to remit the instalments. The complainant had stated in the complaint that the vehicle was seized on 16..9..2005 by the officials of 2nd opp.party. It is further stated that the I instalment was remitted in Andhra Bank, Kollam Branch and it was collected by 2nd opp.party. The 2nd instalment Rs.2100/- remitted on 7..2..2005 directly in the opp.party’s office at high School Junction, Kollam. On 2..6..2005 Rs.5000/- was remitted by the complainant. On 2..7..2005also the complainant had remitted Rs.6050/- . But No receipt was issued to the complainant. After the seizure of the vehicle the complainant had paid Rs.10,000/- on 20..9..2005 on demand of 2nd opp.party for release of the vehicle. Thus the complainant had remitted total amount of Rs.25105/- as on 20..9..2005. Even though the complainant is claiming that Rs.25,105/- was refunded, she could produce only Ext. P2 receipt for Rs.2100/- and Ext.P3 for Rs.5000/- in support of this claim. While in cross examination of PW.1 the learned counsel for the opp.party put a question that “ Dues ir\re\SelXPenal interest domj SvGf\f\ 25105 goe Lb\bsr Lmv\vjgkr\r\ksub\djH in\mj seize svu\ur\SelX rjua rmemjdX cIJdgj]kalujgkr\rh\Shl ? PW1 has not answered to this question. The learned counsel further put the question that 2..7..2005 ý •Ðµ Ĥˆð®´® receipt ÷¡ñ¡´¢ð¢¶¢¿ PW.1 answered that Ext. P2 ¨üú back ý endorsement ƒÙ¤®. Q. Ĥˆ •Ðð®´Ã¨»¼¡Ã® …ù¤Ä¢ð¢ñ¢´¤¼Ä® [A]. Ĥˆ •Ðµ¤ …¼¡Ã¤® …ù¤Ä¢ð¢ñ¢´¤¼Ä®? •¡ðÄ¢H company ð¤¨Ð signature, seal …¼¢ó ƒ©Ù¡? a. ‚¿. ðÄ® ›¢¹þ ˆ¦±Ä¢»»¡ð¢ ƒÙ¡´¢ðġî? A. ôñ¢ð¿
On verification of the back side of Ext. P2 we find that there is entries of some amounts and the total amount noted as Rs.6050/-. It is admitted by PW.1 that there is no signature or seal of the 2nd opp.party. Since there is no signature or seal the document has no authenticity. The reason, pointed out by the complainant for non issuance of receipt that the Manager was not present is unbelievable and it cannot be accepted. The learned counsel for the opp.party put the pertinent question that •ÐµÄ¤ˆ´® receipt Äñ¡Ä¢ñk¼Ä¢›¤®…¨ÉÆ¢ò¤« œñ¡Ä¢ ¨ˆ¡Ð¤·¢¶¤©Ù¡? PW.1 answered that ““‚¿”” In the absence of any documentary evidence other than the oral assertion, the statement made by the complainant that Rs.16050/- has been remitted to the 2nd opp.party cannot be admitted. Even though the complainant repeatedly stated that Rs.15,000/- was received by the 3rd opp.party, no documents was produced to prove the statement
It is further alleged by the complainant that the 2nd opp.party had not intimated anything regarding the sale of vehicle to the complainant and what amount they have recovered from the sale.. But on contrary to the arguement the complainant has stated in the complaint that the complainant had approached the opp.party, after getting the notice of sale. It is admitted that an intimation regarding the sale of vehicle was received by the complainant stating that the vehicle will be sold if the due amount of the loan was not remitted. The complainant had also admitted while in cross exam that the 2nd opp.party holds all the right to repossess the vehicle if the loan amount is not paid properly.
A pertinent question put by the learned counsel for the opp.party that the case was filed only in the year of 2007 after the lapse of a long period even though cause of action was arised in the year 2005. PW.1 answered that the letter demanding arrear amount and denoting the sale was received only in the month of December 2006.
The complainant further stated that after getting the notice for sale she went to the 2nd opp.party’s office and had realized that the vehicle was not there in the opp.party’s office and the institution is not working there. In chief PW.1 had stated that the office of the 2nd opp.party is working but in cross examination he had stated that it is closed PW.1 had also stated that he is not known whether the institution is still alive a not. These statements reveals the inconsistency of the complainant in the above said matters
From the above mentioned facts and circumstances we are of the opinion that no deficiency of service can be attributed against the opp.parties in this case, and the complaint has no bonafides. The complainant fails to establish her case
In the result the complaint is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.
Dated this the 14th day of March, 2012.
G. VASANTHAKUMARI : Sd/-
R. VIJAYAKUMAR :Sd/-
ADV. RAVI SUSHA :Sd/-
Forwarded/by Order,
SENIORSUPERINTNENDENT
I N D E X
List of witnesses for the complainant
PW.1. Jayakumar
List of documents for the complainant
P1. – Instalment statement
P2. – Receipt
P3. – Receipt for Rs.5000/- dated 2..6..2005
P4. – Pass book
