View 1169 Cases Against Mahindra And Mahindra
U.Jansi, filed a consumer case on 06 Apr 2016 against The Manager, Mahindra and Mahindra Finanace RV d, in the North Chennai Consumer Court. The case no is 261/2012 and the judgment uploaded on 03 Jun 2016.
Complaint presented on : 04.12.2012
Order pronounced on : 06.04.2016
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)
2nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3
PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L., : PRESIDENT
TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L., : MEMBER II
WEDNESDAY THE 06th DAY OF APRIL2016
C.C.NO.261/2012
W/O. John Kennedy,
No.45, S.S.V. Koil 3rd Street,
Perambur,
Chennai – 11.
2. M.John Kennedy,
S/O. S. Malarventhan,
No.45, S.S.V. Koil 3rd Street,
Perambur,
Chennai – 11
.....Complainants
..Vs..
The Manager,
Mahindra and Mahindra Fin SRV Ltd.,
13/3, Plot.No.3666A, 19th Street,
P.Block,
Anna Nagar West,
Chennai – 40.
|
| |
...Opposite Party |
|
Date of complaint : 06.12.2012
Counsel for Complainant :M/S Harris Alfred
Counsel for Opposite Party :M/S Pass Associates
O R D E R
BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.SC., B.L.,
This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.
1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:
The Complainant had purchased a Kun Hyundai I-10 Car through finance extended by the Opposite Party and the said vehicle was registered in the name of the 1st Complainant. The total cost of the car was Rs.4,28,000/-. The Complainants paid initial amount of Rs.1,28,000/- to purchase the car and the Opposite Party advanced a loan of Rs.3,00,000/- repayable in 60 monthly equal installments. The 2ndComplainants maintained an account with
2.WRITTEN VERSION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:
The Complainants and one Sanjay approached the Opposite Party seeking financial assistance in August 2010 for the purchase of a Car Viz., Hyundai I 10 on an assurance that the Complainants have sufficient earnings and potential to repay the loan together with finance charges without any delay or default. The Complainants represented that the 1st Complainant is working in Central Drug Testing Laboratory, Government of India and that the 2nd Complainant is a businessman. Based on the representation and assurance of the Complainants, the Opposite Party and Complainants had entered into a loan agreement dated 17.08.2010 vide contract No.1275592.The said loan agreement was executed by the Opposite Party as “Lender”. The 1st Complainant as “Borrower” and the 2nd Complainant as “Co-borrower” and one Sanjay as “Guarantor”. The cost of the vehicle was Rs.3,83,259/- . In pursuance of the said agreement, the Opposite Party had extended financial facility to the extent of Rs.3 Lakhs, which shall be repayable together with the agreed finance charges. The cost of the vehicle was Rs.3,83,259/-. The value of the agreement is Rs.4,2,600/-. The Complainants have agreed to repay the value of the agreement amount in 60 monthly installments at Rs.7,150/- per month commencing from 20.08.2010 ending with 20.07.2015.In case of any delay or default, the Complainants had agreed to pay the additional finance charges at 3% per month on the sum default until its payment. The 1st Complainant had given her Savings Bank Account No.01000100030236 from
3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:
1.Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
2.Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what relief?
4.POINT:1
The admitted case of the both the parties are that the Complainant purchased a Kun Hyundai I-10 Car in the name of the 1st Complainant and the Opposite Party financed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to purchase the said car as the 1st Complainant as borrower and the second Complainant as Co-borrower and one Mr. Sanjay as “Guarantor” and the Complainants agreed to repay the loan amount in 60 monthly installments at the rate of Rs.7,150/- per month through ECS clearing from the 2nd Complainant UCO Bank commencing from 20.08.2010.
5. The admitted case of the Complainant is that they have to pay a sum of Rs.7,150 per month as EMI’s. The Complainants marked Ex.A3 statement of account of the Complainants of UCO Bank to prove the payment of EMI’s made. As per the Ex.A3 statement the Complainant paid EMI’s up to 20.12.2011, further in the said statement it is mentioned on the dates against 20.01.2012, 20.02.2012, 21.05.2012 and 20.09.2012 ECS rejection charges were withdrawn from the Complainants account. In the said statement there is no proof that for the aforesaid dates the EMI’s were paid by the Complainant. However, the Opposite Party himself admitted in the written version that since May 2012 the Complainant had not made any payments towards the loan borrowed by them from the Opposite Party. The Complainants also have not filed any document to prove that since May 2012 they have paid EMI’s to the Opposite Party. Therefore, it is held that the Complainant committed default in payment of EMI’s from May 2012 onwards.
6. As per Ex.B3 loan agreement clause 12.1the Opposite Party has power to sell the vehicle and adjust with the outstanding loan amount, if the borrowers failed to make the full payment within 7 days from the date of receipt of notice. The Opposite Party issued Ex.B7 letter to the Complainants to settle the account by paying an outstanding of Rs.2,55,047/-. So also, Ex.B8 letter dated 20.12.2012 terminating the contract of agreement and requiring the Complainant to pay a sum of Rs.2,47,981/- and to settle the account. Even after such notice the Complainants have not come forward to settle the account. Thereafter the vehicle was sold under Ex.B10 for an amount of Rs.2,11,600/- as per Ex.B11. After adjusting the sale proceeds according to the Opposite Party as per Es.B12 the Complainants yet to pay an amount of Rs.76,010/- to the Opposite Party. Since the Complainants have not paid the EMI’s towards loan borrowed by them, the Opposite Party issued Ex.B8 re-call notice to the Complainants and thereafter sold the vehicle is in order.
7. From the available evidence and documents the Complainants have not paid the EMI’s from May 2012 onwards, we hold that the Opposite Party has not committed any Deficiency in Service in selling the vehicle.
8.POINT:2
Since the Opposite Party has not committed deficiency in service, the complainant is not entitled for any relief in this complaint and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
In the result the complaint is dismissed. No costs.
Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 06th day of April 2016.
MEMBER – II PRESIDENT
LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:
Ex.A1 dated NIL Xerox copy of the receipt of the vehicle
Ex.A2 dated NIL Xerox copy of the R.C.Book
Ex.A3 dated NIL Xerox copy of the Pass Book UCO Bank,
Purasaiwakkam Branch
Ex.A4 dated NIL Xerox copy of the receipts issued by the Bill
Collector
Ex.A5 dated NIL Xerox copy of the Legal Notice issued dated
29.10.2012 with AD Card.
Ex.A6 dated NIL Xerox copy of the reply issued by the Opposite
Party
LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY:
Ex.B1 dated 10.12.2012 Power of Attorney
Ex.B2 dated NIL Employment ID proof of the Complainant
Ex.B3 dated 17.08.2010 Loan Agreement
Ex.B4 dated NIL Repayment Schedule
Ex.B5 dated 16.08.2010 Electronic Clearing Service
Ex.B6 dated NIL Statement of Accounts
Ex.B7 dated 23.11.2012 Communication from the Opposite Party to the
Complainant
Ex.B8 dated 20.12.2012 Recall Notice
Ex.B9 dated 02.01.2013 Arbitration reference notice
Ex.B10 dated 20.03.2013 Vehicle Valuation Report
Ex.B11 dated 14.02.2013 Sale Receipt
Ex.B12 dated 20.11.2013 Settlement Working Sheet
Ex.B13 dated 24.01.2013 Arbitration Proceedings notice
Ex.B14 dated 22.01.2013 Arbitration Claim Petition
MEMBER – II PRESIDENT
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
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.