1.      Heard Mr. Bharat Sood, Advocate, for the petitioner. 

2.      Above revision has been filed against the order of Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthpuram, dated 18.04.2023, dismissing First Appeal No.171 of 2023 (arising from the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Palakkad, dated 30.01.2023 passed in CC/8/2020), whereby District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to restructure the schedule of repayment of the loan of the complainant, calculating interest at the rate based on guidelines of RBI, ignoring loan recall notice dated 11.02.2022 and pay Rs.50000/- for committing unfair trade practice and Rs.15000/-, as litigation cost, apart from directions issued to other opposite parties.

3.      Ubaid (respondent-1) filed CC/8/2020 for directing M/s. Piaggio Vehicles Pvt. Ltd., M/s. SML Motors and M/s. BRD Motors Ltd. (opposite parties-1 to 3) (respondents-2 to 4) to (i) refund the price of the vehicle Porter 700, LMV Goods Carriage Vehicle, along with road tax and insurance charges paid for it, with interest @12% per annum, from the date of purchase till the date of refund; or in alternative replace the old Porter 700, LMV Goods Carriage Vehicle with new vehicle of same model; and for directing M/s. Esaf Small Finance Bank Ltd. (opposite party-4) (the petitioner) to (ii) stop recovery proceeding of the loan till the price of the vehicle is refunded by opposite parties-1 to 3; (iii) restructure the schedule of repayment of the loan of the complainant, calculating interest at the rate based on guidelines of RBI and excluding the period from 14.11.2019 till restructure; (iv) pay Rs.500000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment; (v) pay litigation costs; and (vi) any other relief, which is deemed fit and proper in the fact of the case.

4.      The complainant stated that M/s. Piaggio Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. (opposite party-1) was manufacturer, M/s. SML Motors (opposite party-2) was an authorised dealer and M/s. BRD Motors Ltd. (opposite party-3) was an authorised service centre of Porter 700, LMV Goods Carriage Vehicle. M/s. Esaf Small Finance Bank Ltd. (opposite party-4) was a private non-banking finance company and had business relation with M/s. SML Motors (opposite party-2). M/s. Piaggio Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. (opposite party-1) advertised in electronic and print media that Porter 700, LMV Goods Carriage Vehicle was a best and super performance light vehicle on which warranty of 42 months/ 120000 km was offered. The complainant had driving licence. Allured with above advertisement of opposite party-1, the complainant decided to purchase Porter 700, LMV Goods Carriage Vehicle, for earning his livelihood by way of self-employment. The complainant approached opposite party-2, where his employees assured about above advertisement and informed that the vehicle would be financed by M/s. Esaf Small Finance Bank Ltd. (opposite party-4). The complainant purchased Porter 700, LMV Goods Carriage Vehicle, having Engine No.S7F8718222, Chassis No.MBX0002VBVF273556 and Registration No.KL-50-G 9277, from opposite party-2, for price of Rs.345459/- + Rs.12200/- as registration charge and road tax + Rs.21266/- as insurance charges on 10.11.2018. The complainant paid Rs.140000/- and M/s. Esaf Small Finance Bank Ltd. (opposite party-4) financed Rs.242000/-, for which he get signatures of the complainant on loan document and hypothecation deed. Within four month of purchase, the vehicle came to standstill. The complainant intrusted the vehicle to opposite party-2, who after 10 days informed that there was some problem in gearbox which had been rectified. In seventh month of purchase, the vehicle again stopped in midway of the journey. The complainant again took the vehicle to opposite party-2, who after repair handed over it to the complainant. The vehicle again broke down. At that time opposite party-2, shifted its agency to at Kakkalai, Thrissur as such the vehicle was brought to opposite party-3, who even after expiry of 14 weeks could not repair it. The vehicle was suffering from major manufacturing defect at the time was purchase as such it was creating problem again and again. Earning of the complainant was stopped as he could not be ply the vehicle due to defect in it and lying at service centre, as such he could not pay EMI on his loan amount. The workers and recovery agent of opposite party-4 started giving threatening to him of dire consequences. Opposite parties-1, 2 and 4 in connivance of each other used to sell defective vehicles to the customers and cheat them. Opposite party-4 was charging interest @23% per annum on the EMI and for delayed period @30% per annum, which was contrary to RBI guidelines and unfair trade practice. The complainant gave legal notices dated 14.11.2019 to opposite party-2 to replace the old vehicle with new one and opposite party-4 to resist from realizing EMI till new vehicle is given to him and reschedule the loan. Opposite parties-2 and 4 replied vide notices on 21.11.2019 and 04.12.2019 respectively and denied their liability. Then the complaint was filed on 13.01.2020.

5.      The petitioner filed its written reply and contested the complaint. The petitioner stated that it was carrying on business of finance under the licence of Reserve Bank of India and levying interest as per norms of RBI. The complainant approached for grant of loan, for purchasing the vehicle in question to opposite party-4. On examination of his papers, opposite party-4 sanctioned loan of Rs.420000/- and disbursed to opposite party-2 on 08.11.2018. The complainant executed loan agreement and hypothecation deed under which interest @23% per annum and in case of default @30% per annum was agreed between the parties. It was denied that opposite party-4 was conniving with opposite party-2 for sale of defective vehicle or charging the interest contrary to the guidelines of RBI. It has been denied that the workers and recovery agent of opposite party-4 had given threatening to the complainant of dire consequences. The complainant stopped payment of EMI since 09.09.2019. In order to evade from repaying the loan, the complaint has been filed on false allegations and liable to be dismissed.

          Opposite party-1 and 2 also filed their separate written reply.

6.      District Commission issued an Expert Commissioner for examination of the vehicle, who after examination, submitted its report dated 23.01.2021 stating the vehicle was lying in the garage of opposite party-3. Front and rear wheels, brake, gearbox, clutch and silencer were dis-assembled and gearbox was not present. Most of the parts were missing or unfit for use. The vehicle was in rusted condition. Chances of the vehicle being roadworthy was remote. District Commission, by judgment dated 30.01.2023, held that in spite of order dated 19.03.2021, opposite partirs-1 and 3 could not give any proof relating to service of the vehicle. Bad condition of the vehicle was proved from expert’s report dated 23.01.2021. Opposite parties-1 to 3 have failed to repair the vehicle during warranty period and have stripped the vehicle of all essential parts rendering the vehicle useless, which amounts to deficiency in service. Opposite party-4 was levying 23% interest compounded monthly on the loan amount which was illegal and arbitrary and amounts to unfair trade practice. On these findings the complaint was allowed as the order as mentioned above has been passed. The petitioner filed First Appeal No.171 of 2023, from the order of District Commission. State Commission, by its judgment dated 18.04.2023, affirmed the findings of District Commission and relying upon judgment of this Commission in Awaz Ahammedabad Vs.RBI, I (2008) CPJ 319 (NC), dismissed the appeal. Hence the petitioner has filed this revision.

7.      I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. After demonetization of currency notes of Rs.500/- and Rs.1000/- in November, 2016, Reserve Bank of India has substantially reduced rate of interest. The petitioner sanctioned loan on 08.11.2018, on the interest @23% per annum and in case of default @30% per annum. Reserve Bank of India vide Notification No.RBI/2012-13/27 dated 02.07.2012, directed non-banking financial institutions from charging penal interest. State Commission, relying upon judgment of this Commission in Awaz Ahammedabad Vs.RBI, I (2008) CPJ 319 (NC), held that interest charged by the petitioner was exorbitant and excessive and directed to charge interest as per guidelines of RBI. I do not find any reason to interfere with the orders of Fora below. 

.  

.O R D E R

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the revision is dismissed.