DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024.
PRESENT : SRI. VINAY MENON .V, PRESIDENT.
: SMT. VIDYA .A, MEMBER.
: SRI. KRISHNANKUTTY N .K, MEMBER.
Date of filing: 11.03.2024.
CC/87/2024
Antony Bose.P, - Complainant
S/o.Packian, Malayappan veedu,
Pazhukanikkalam, Vengodi PO,
Elappully, Near patspin company,
Palakkad-678 622.
(By Adv.E.Suresh Kumar Nair)
VS
Toyota Financial Service Ltd, -Opposite Party
Through its Managing Director,
Registered Office, No.21, Centropolis,
First Floor, 5th cross,
Langford Road, Shanti Nagar,
Bangalore-560 025.
(Ex-parte)
ORDER
BY SRI. KRISHNANKUTTY N .K, MEMBER.
1. Pleadings of the complainant in brief
The complainant availed a vehicle loan Rs.1,80,000/- from the opposite party for purchasing a second hand car. The agreed interest rate was 15.75% pa and the loan was repayable in 65 EMIs. The complainant closed the loan and the opposite party issued NOC on 12.06.2023 for cancellation of hypothecation charge in the RC. On 10.12.2023, the opposite party issued a loan account statement to the complainant. The allegation of the complainant is that total amount collected by the opposite party is more than what is payable as per the loan agreement signed. Another grievance is that even after closing the loan as above, the opposite party issued a letter on 01.12.2023 to the complainant stating that the complainant is a defaulter and unilaterally appointing sole Arbitrator to arbitrate the dispute. The complainant issued a lawyer notice on 12.02.2024, objecting to the appointment of Arbitrator and demanding Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation for the negligent practice of the opposite party to be paid within 15 days of receipt of the notice. As the opposite party failed act, the complainant has approached this Commission seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- along with cost and other incidental reliefs.
2. The complaint was admitted and notice was issued to the opposite party. As the opposite party failed to file version within the statutory period, they were set ex-parte.
3. Complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Exts.A1 to A6 as evidence. Ext.A1 is the copy of RC of the vehicle showing hypothecation charge in favour of the opposite party, Ext.A2 is the NOC along with form 35 issued by the opposite party for cancellation of hypothecation, Ext.A3 is the loan account statement of the complainant, Ext.A4 is the letter issued to the complainant by the opposite party, referring the loan for arbitration and appointing sole arbitrator, Ext.A5 is legal notice issued by Advocate E.Suresh Kumar Nair on behalf of the complainant and Ext.A6 is statement of claim.
4. In the absence of version from the side of opposite party, this Commission is expected to see only whether there is any prima facie case in the complaint.
5. The first allegation of the complaint is about the excess amount collected by the opposite party over and above what is payable as per the terms of agreement. The complainant failed to adduce any evidence such as loan agreement executed, or any direction from RBI in support of his pleadings. Hence, we are not in a position to decide on whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.
6. The next issue is the act of opposite party referring the loan for arbitration proceedings and appointing an arbitrator on 01.12.2023 (Ext.A4). The opposite party had issued NOC along with form 35 for the purpose of cancelling the hypothecation in the RC on 12.06.2023 (Ext.A2). Sending arbitration notice even after recording closure of the loan in the NOC and the loan account statement (Ext.A3) be it out of negligence or intentional, is a serious case of deficiency in service and unfair practice on the part of the opposite party. Though, the complainant got issued lawyer notice to the opposite party pointing out this mistake, they did not respond. Hence, the complainant is liable to be compensated.
7. In the result, the complaint is allowed ordering the following relief;
1) The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
2) The opposite party is also liable to pay Rs.25,000/- as cost of litigation.
The above amounts are to be paid within 45 days of receipt of this order, failing which the opposite parties are liable to give Rs.500/-as solatium per month or part thereof from the date of the order till the date of final payment.
Pronounced in open court on this the 19th day of June, 2024.
Sd/-
VINAY MENON .V, PRESIDENT.
Sd/-
KRISHNANKUTTY N .K, MEMBER.
APPENDIX
Documents marked from the side of the complainant:
Ext.A1: Copy of the RC of the vehicle.
Ext.A2: Copy of NOC dated 12.06.2023 issued by the opposite party along with form 35.
Ext.A3: Loan account statement of the complainant issued by the opposite party.
Ext.A4: Letter dated 01.12.2023 issued by the opposite party.
Ext.A5: Copy of the legal notice issued on 12.02.2024 to the opposite party by Adv.E.Suresh Kumar.
Ext.A6: Claim statement.
Document marked from the side of Opposite party: Nil
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Court witness: Nil
Cost : 25,000/-.
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5)of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
