Kerala

Palakkad

CC/09/147

Hamza - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Proprietor - Opp.Party(s)

K.P.Nouphal, Ratheesh Kumar.R

25 Feb 2010

ORDER


CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUMCivil Station, Palakkad - 678001, Kerala
CONSUMER CASE NO. 09 of 147
1. HamzaS/o. Aboobacker, 10/150(32/150) Narikuthy, Palakkad TalukPalakkadKerala ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. The ProprietorA.K. Finance, New Number 48, A P Road, Choolai, Chennai -12ChennaiKerala2. H. SaleemProprietor, SSS Auto Consultant, Financial Consultant and Agent of A K Finance, Pirivusala, Palliline, Palakkad TalukPalakkadKerala ...........Respondent(s)


For the Appellant :
For the Respondent :

Dated : 25 Feb 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

Civil Station, Palakkad – 678001, Kerala


 

Dated this the 25th day of February, 2010


 

Present : Smt. Seena.H (President)

: Smt. Preetha.G. Nair (Member)

: Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K. (Member)


 

C.C.No.147/2009


 

Hamza,

S/o.Aboobacker,

10/150(32/150),

Narikuthy,

Palakkad. - Complainant

(By Adv.K.P.Nouphal & Ratheeshkumar.R)


 

Vs


 

1. The Proprietor,

A.K.Finance,

New Number48, AP Road,

Choolai,

Chennai – 12,

Tamil Nadu.


 

2. H.Saleem,

Proprietor,

SSS Auto Consultant,

Financial Consultant and Agent of AK Finance,

Pirivusala, Palli lane,

Palakkad Taluk,

Palakkad. - Opposite parties


 

O R D E R

By Smt. Seena.H, President


 

Case of the complainant in brief is as follows:


 

Complainant purchased a lorry bearing No.KL13 A799 from its prior owner for a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- and availed a loan of Rs.60,000/- from the 1st opposite party under hypothecation on 26.03.07. He is finding his livelihood from the transporting


 

the vehicle. After availing the loan, the complainant paid entire amount of Rs.99780/- towards the loan by 9 instalments and receipts were issued by the opposite parties for the same. Opposite parties took the receipts away from the complainant saying that they have to verify the account and to settle the matter. When the complainant approached the opposite parties they were reluctant to close the hypothecation and issue NOC and demanded Rs.10,000/- more towards the penal interest. Complainant submits that he informed the opposite parties that unless they handover the necessary papers to close the hypothecation, he will initiate legal action. Complainant received a notice dt.6.10.09 from opposite party demanding to pay Rs.59,500/- towards the loan. Complainant alleges that the acts of opposite parties amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. Hence this complaint seeking an order preventing the opposite parties and their men from interfering the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the vehicle and preventing them from forcefully taking away the vehicle, to close the hypothecation and to handover all necessary legal papers to the complainant and to cancel the hypothecation noted in the Registration certificate of the vehicle and cost of the proceedings.


 

Opposite parties were absent and set ex-parte.


 

Complainant filed affidavit and documents. Exts.A1 to A10 were marked on the side of complainant.


 

Issues:

1. Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for?

2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?


 

Issue No.1:

On going through the prayer portion of the complaint, complainant has prayed for a permanent prohibitory injunction preventing opposite parties and their men from interfering the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the lorry bearing reg. No.KL13/A799 held by the complainant and preventing them from forcefully taking

away the vehicle. Complainant has also prayed for a mandatory injunction directing the opposite parties to close the hypothecation account in respect of the vehicle and hand over all papers with respect to the vehicle and cancel the hypothecation noted in the registration certificate. Complainant has not claimed any compensation for the deficiency in service.


 

Consumer forum has no power to award the reliefs prayed for. Complainant has to approach the Civil Court for the same. Even if there is a specific finding as to the deficiency in service, complainant has not claimed any compensation for the same.


 

Even though the matter complained comes within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, we are not in a position to award the reliefs claimed. Issue No.1 found against the complainant.


 

In view of the above circumstances, without going into further issues we are of the view that complaint be dismissed. Complainant shall be at liberty to file a fresh complaint as per provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.


 

Pronounced in the open court on this the 25th day of February, 2010


 

Sd/-

Seena.H,

President


 

Sd/-

Preetha.G.Nair,

Member


 

Sd/-

Bhanumathi.A.K,

Member

Appendix

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1 – Copy of receipt dt.06/04/09

Ext.A2 - Copy of receipt dt.08/01/09

Ext.A3 - Copy of receipt dt.12/11/08

Ext.A4 - Copy of receipt dt.11/03/08

Ext.A5 - Copy of receipt dt.07/12/07

Ext.A6 - Copy of receipt dt.23/08/07

Ext.A7 - Copy of receipt dt.08/03/07

Ext.A8 - Copy of receipt dt.24/05/07

Ext.A9 – Telegram dt.06/10/09 sent by 1st opposite party to complainant

Ext.A10 – Photocopies of Certificate of Registration

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite parties

Nil


HONORABLE Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, MemberHONORABLE Smt.Seena.H, PRESIDENTHONORABLE Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member