KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 171/2023
JUDGMENT DATED: 18.04.2023
(Against the Order in C.C. 08/2020 of CDRC, Palakkad)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI.RANJIT. R : MEMBER
SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
APPELLANT:
M/s ESAF Small Finance Bank Ltd., represented by its Managing Director, Town Branch, DPO Road, Palakkad-678 014.
(By Adv. J.S. Asok Kumar)
Vs.
RESPONDENTS:
- Ubaid, S/o Abdulla, Villan House, Payyanadam, Mannarkkad, Palakkad-678 583.
- M/s Piaggio Vehicles Pvt. Ltd., represented by Managing Director, 8th Floor, Sky one, Kalyani Nagar, Pune, Maharashtra-411 006.
- M/s SML Motors, represented by its Manager, NH 47, Coimbatore Road, Marutha Road (PO), Palakkad-678 007 presently functioning at SML Motors, Kakkalai, Thrissur-680 721.
- M/s BRD Motors Ltd., represented by its Managing Director, BRD Complex, NH Byepass, Konikara, Thrissur-680 306.
JUDGMENT
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
The appellant is the fourth opposite party in C.C. No. 8/2020 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Palakkad (District Commission for short). On 30.01.2023 the District Commission had annulled the demand notice issued by the fourth opposite party and directed to restructure the loan availed by the complainant. Direction was also issued to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation, Rs. 15,000/- as costs and also to pay a solatium of Rs. 250/- per month to the complainant if the opposite party fails to pay the amount within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order of the District Commission.
2. The complainant had purchased a LMV Goods Carrier from the Second opposite party. The manufacturer of the vehicle is the first opposite party. The vehicle had manufacturing defects and when it was brought to the service centre of the second opposite party the complainant realized that they had stopped the business. So the complainant approached the third opposite party who was functioning as the service centre of the first opposite party. But the defects could not be cured. The second opposite party had connived with the fourth opposite party in providing financial assistance to the complainant by charging an exorbitant rate of interest. Appellant would challenge the order of the District Commission on the ground that the demand was made on the basis of an agreement executed between the parties on the rate of interest. There was no violation on the part of the opposite party in raising the demand. The District Commission ought not to have fastened the liability of the manufacturing defects of the vehicle on the opposite party. The compensation fixed as Rs. 50,000/- is highly erroneous. The appellant had claimed interest as per the norms prescribed by the RBI.
3. Heard the counsel for the appellant. Perused the appeal memorandum and the order of the District Commission.
4. The District Commission had annulled the contract sought to be executed on the reason that the fourth opposite party had charged exorbitant, usurious rate of interest on the loan availed by the complainant.
5. The appellant would challenge that order on the ground that the District Commission had no authority to make any interference on the rate of interest charged because it was charged as per mutual agreement.
6. The fourth opposite party did not cause production of any documents in respect of the transaction.
7. The complainant had caused production of Ext. A8, wherein the rate of interest is specified as 23% per annum with a penal interest on default @ 2.5% and the materials on record would show the rate of interest charged by the appellant had exceeded 30% per annum. In this regard an order of the National Commission in “Awaz Ahammedabad Vs RBI reported in 1(2008) CPJ 319(NC)” is relevant. Charging interest exceeding 30% per annum will amount to unfair trade practice.
8. In view of the settled position as discussed above the contention of the appellant that the District Commission has no power to nullify a contract executed between the parties is found unsustainable. We couldn't find any illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the District Commission. No purpose will be served in admitting the appeal and calling for the records from the District Commission. So we are disinclined to admit the appeal.
In the result the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
Sd/-
AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
Sd/-
RANJIT. R : MEMBER
Sd/-
BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
Sd/-
RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
jb
