<br /> <br /> By R. VIJAYAKUMAR, MEMBER.<br /> <br /> The complainant has filed this complaint for getting an order allowing the complainant to realize Rs.6,44,000/- from the opp.party and through attachment of his properties.<br /> <br /> Contention in the complaint can be summarized as follows:<br /> <br /> The complainant who belongs to traditional fishermen family availed a loan from the opp.party for Rs.6,00,000/-. Complainant remitted Rs.1,30,000/- in advance. Opp.party purchased a Mini Lorry bearing No.KL02T 6959 in favour of the complainant. Vehicle was handed over to the complainant in October 2004. The complainant invested Rs.70,000/- for making storage facilities etc. in the vehicle.<br /> <br /> <br /> The sea shore area was totally collapsed by the Tsunami calamity and Govt announced concessions in the interest rate and allowed more time for repayment of loans of fishermen. As an authorized money lender also bound to grant such concession to the lonees. But instead of giving concession opp.party threaten at the complainant and he was fixed to repay Rs.16,000/- on 5.10.2005 and Rs.15,590/- on 21.11.2005.<br /> <br /> Without any previous notice opp.party captu8red the said vehicle from the stand nearby Sakthikulangara Kurissadi collapsing front glass and robbed documents of vehicle and Rs.5000/- which was kept inside the vehicle using some goonda elements.<br /> <br /> A petition was filed by the complainant in Sakithikulangaral Police Station but no further step was taken by police.<br /> <br /> Knowing that the vehicle was captured by the opp.party, complainant informed opp.party that he is ready to pay the due instalments and two instalments in advance. The opp.party denied and sent notice on 25.12.05 to be complainant demanding remittance of Rs.5,16,243/- and 24% penal interest.<br /> <br /> The complainant t has incurred a gross loss of Rs.3,80,000/- by the way of payments and investments and because of the robbery. Complainant sent an Adv. Notice. Opp.party stood intransigent. Hence the complaint . <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Complainant filed this complaint on 19.6.2006 subsequently opp.party issued a notice e to the complainant informing that he had disposed the vehicle for Rs.3,40,000/- and complainant should remit Rs.1,94,212/-as <br /> balance amount along with an interest at the rate of 2% within 7 days otherwise he will take legal steps.<br /> Complainant has filed an interim application for injunction. Injunction order was granted restraining the opp.party from taking any legal steps on the basis of notice dated 23.0.06 against the complainant till the disposal of this complaint.<br /> <br /> <br /> Opp.party remained absent. Hence he set exparte. Complainant filed affidavit. Exts. P1 and P2 series marked. Two additional documents were filed by the complainant and marked as Exts.P3 and P4. Complainant was heard.<br /> <br /> <br /> The points that would arise for consideration are:<br /> <br /> [1] Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opp.party.<br /> [ii] Compensation<br /> <br /> Points 1 and 2<br /> <br /> As the opp.party remained absent, we are constrained to relay upon the evidence adduced by the complainant. Complainant paid 1,30,000/- in advance. Ext.P2 since shows that an amount of Rs.63,120/- remitted by the complainant [12.4.2005 Rs.31180/-/ 15.10.2005 Rs.16,000/- and 21.11.2005 Rs.1,59,407/- after the loan has availed. Complainant invested Rs.70,000/- for making other facilities in the Lorry. The total actual investments of the complainant is Rs.2,63,120/-.<br /> <br /> <br /> It is true that the Govt. announced concessions in the interest rate and allowed more time for the repayment of Loan in the Tsunami affected area. Sakthikulangara Sea Shore area was also affected by the Tsunami calamity. Opp.party also bound to grant these concessions to the fisherman Loanees of the affected area. Knowing all these situations and circumstances opp.party forcibly by using goonda elements captured the Mini Lorry from an open place at midnight. The opp.party has no right to do so. There is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party. The act of opp.party resulted in sudden struck in the income of complainant. Opp.party himself is liable for the consequences araised from the illegal acts of opp.party.<br /> <br /> <br /> In the result the complaint is partly allowed. The opp.party is directed to pay Rs.2,63,120/- as his payments and investments along with 9% interest per annum and Rs.25,000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as cost.. The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of the receipt of the order.<br /> <br /> <br /> Dated this the 12th day of May, 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> I N D E X<br /> <br /> <br /> List of documents for the complainant<br /> <br /> P1. – policy paper<br /> P2.- Notice<br /> P3. – Payments details<br /> P4. – Quotation for new Eicher<br />