Date of filing      :   06-01-2012

                                                                       Date of order     :   14-09-2015

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

                                             CC.08/2012

                      Dated this, the 14^th      day of  September  2015

PRESENT:

SMT.P.RAMADEVI                                         : PRESIDENT

SMT.K.G.BEENA                                          : MEMBER

SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL                               : MEMBER

Damodara.M, S/o.Chandroji,                                                         : Complainant

R/at Mate of Maniyoor, Po.Urdoor,

Kasaragod.Dt.

(Adv.Satyashankara Bhat & Subrahmanya Bhat,

 Kasaragod)

1 Shriram Transport Finance Corporation Ltd,                           : Opposite parties

   Ist floor, Paradigm Plaza, Near AB Shetty Clinic,

   Mangalore.Po. 575001.

2 The Shriram Transport Finance Corporation Ltd,

   Mookambika complex, 3^rd Floor, 4, Lady Desika Road,

   Mylapore, Chennai. 600004.

(Adv. George John Plamootill, Kasaragod)

                                                            O R D E R

SMT.BEENA.K.G. MEMBER

            The complainant availed a loan facility from 2^nd opposite party through 1^st opposite party for the purchase of Mahindra Pick up Jeep bearing Reg.No.KL-14-C-7940 on 25-06-2006 for 2 lakhs which was to be repaid with interest in a period of 4 years.  When complainant approached opposite parties for closure the loan account in the end of the year 2010.  Opposite parties were not ready for the same.  Opposite parties agent approached the complainant with a threat that if he fails to pay Rs.2.5 lakhs within a week they will take forcible possession of the vehicle and seize the vehicle. Complainant is alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.  Hence the complaint for necessary redressal.

2.         Opposite parties 1 & 2 in their version denied all the allegations of the complainant.  It is also denied that complainant was not made aware of the rechart system of agreement by opposite parties it is further denied that complainant approached opposite parties for closing the loan account, but opposite parties were not ready for the same.  It is denied that opposite parties denied to provide copy of the statement of accounts to the complainant.  It is further denied that opposite parties agent approached the complainant with a threat that if the complainant fails to pay Rs.2,50,000/- within a week, will take forcible possession of the vehicle. Allegation of the opposite parties is that complainant knowing all facts filed this complaint  to harass the opposite parties and thereby to get unlawful gain.  This complaint is not maintainable as the complainant is not a consumer as per Sec 2 (d) of CP Act.

3.         Complainant filed proof affidavit. Exts A1 to A9 marked.  Complainant is cross-examined by the counsel of opposite parties. Ext.B1 marked.  Heard both sides. The main questions raised for consideration  are:

            1 Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

            2 If so, what is the relief?

4.         Issue No.1 & 2 :    Complainant availed a vehicle loan of Rs.2 lakhs from 2^nd opposite party through Ist opposite party, which were to be repaid with interest in period of 4 years.  Complainant in his affidavit stated that he was paying the instalments almost regularly.  But opposite party did not give the repayment chart/or repayment schedule showing rate of interest and other material particulars.  Opposite parties in their statement vehemently denied all allegations of the complainant except granting of vehicle loan.  After sanctioning the loan usually Bank suggest  a particular date for repayment of EMI.  While perusing Exts A1 to A9 receipts issued by opposite parties to the complainant. In Ext.A1 receipt issued on 12-05-2007 for Rs.900/-, Ext.A2 dt.30-06-2007 for Rs.7640/- only.  Ext.A3 is for Rs 7250/-only.  Ext.A4 issued on 30-09-2007 for Rs.8,000/-only.  Ext.A5 issued on 27-11-2007 for Rs.10,000/- only.  Ext.A6 issued on 31-12-2007 for Rs.10,000/- only.  Ext.A7 issued on 4-2-2008 for Rs.7500/- only.  Ext.A8 issued on 27-6-2008 for Rs.7500/- only. Ext. A9 issued on 7^th Month 08 Rs.7500/- only.   Complainant after taking injunction order,  never turned up to repay the outstanding balance.  If opposite party refused to receive the amount, complainant could have remit the amount before the forum.  Complainant in his cross-examination deposed before the Forum that opposite parties issued receipt for all repayments, so there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties.  Complainant admitted statement shown by opposite parties counsel and it is marked as Ext.B2.    The main allegation against opposite parties that when the complainant approached opposite parties for closure the loan account, the opposite parties were not ready for the same.  Complainant had every  right to file an IA to accept the amount through Forum.   While evaluating the complaint, affidavit and depositions and documents of both parties we could not find any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties since there is clear violation of hypothecation agreement, the complainant is not entitled for any relief claimed in the complaint and therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed.    Hence the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.

MEMBER                                                                             MEMBER                                             PRESIDENT

Exts.

A1 to A9 Receipts issued by OP to complainant.

B1. Copy of Loan Cum Hypothecation Agreement.

B2. 14-01-2012 Part. A Details of the Agreement

PW1. Damodara.

MEMBER                                                                             MEMBER                                             PRESIDENT

Pj/