IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA

Thursday  the 28th   day of  September, 2017

Filed on 29.11.2016

Present

1.Smt. Elizabeth George (President)

2. Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)

3.Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)

in 

C.C.No.389/2016

between

 Complainant:-      Opposite Parties:-

 

Sri. P.B. Harikumar 1. Indus Ind Bank

Puthentharayil Near Railway Over Bridge

Vedaraplavu K.P.Road

Alappuzha – 690 505 Kayamkulam

 

O R D E R

SRI. ANTONY XAVIER (MEMBER) 

 

 

The complainant case in succinct is as follows:-  

The complainant availed a vehicle loan of Rs. 2,47,000/- from the opposite party. As per the agreement the loan had to be paid off in 60 installments vide EMI Rs.5920/-.  The complainant paid off the entire amount.  The opposite parties took higher interest than what had been prescribed by the RBI.  Strangely still the opposite party demanded an additional amount of Rs. 8365/- from the complainant. During the period while the complainant was suffering from heart ailment he defaulted payment for one or two occasions.  Thereafter, the complainant as instructed by the opposite party’s representative paid off the defaulted amount along with penal interest.  The opposite party demanded the aforesaid amount of Rs. 8365/- only when the complainant approached the 

Opposite party for NOC.  The complainant had cleared off the entire loan amount.  The opposite party’s demand of further amount is illegitimate.  The complainant being aggrieved on this approached this Forum for compensation and other relief.

2. On notice being served the opposite party turned up and filed version.  The crux of the contention of the opposite party is that the complainant had defaulted payment for more than five or six occasions.  The payment of EMI had to be effected on or before 21th of every month.  If payment is not made a 3% interest of the said amount had to be paid till effecting payment.  Another amount of  Rs. 562/- was to be paid on each occasion of the  bouncing of the cheque.  The complainant had defaulted payment on several occasions, and hence he is liable to pay an amount of Rs. 10740.64/- to the opposite party, the opposite party vehemently contends.  The complainant is not entitled to any relief sought for from the opposite parties, and the complaint is only to be dismissed with cost.

3.  The complainant evidence consists of the testimony of the complainant as PW1, and the documents Exts.A1series to A2 were marked.  The opposite party was examined as RW1, and the document Ext.B1 was marked.

4. Bearing in mind the contention of both the parties, the questions that come up for consideration are:-

a. Whether the opposite party’s trade practice is unfair?

b. If the complainant is entitled to any relief?

5. We cautiously went through the materials placed on record by the parties.  The complainant’s specific case is that he availed a vehicle loan from the opposite party.  He paid off the entire amount vide sixty installments.  On the other hand the opposite party would contend that the complainant defaulted the EMI on several occasions, and the payments were made belatedly.  As such the complainant had to pay an amount of Rs.10740.64/- towards penal interest, and default charges. Keeping all these contentions of the parties in our mind, we perused the entire materials available on record before us.  On a meticulous perusal of the evidence adduced, it appears that the complainant had made default in effecting payment promptly in time.  However it is to be noted that the complainant paid off the EMI in full though belatedly.  In the said context, as per the loan arrangement the complainant is liable to the opposite party for some amount.  However at the same time we are of the view that the amount of Rs.10740.64/-  is a exorbitant and unfair.  In this circumstance as we have already observed, the complainant is liable to pay a reasonable amount to the opposite party.

6. In the wake of what have been discussed herein above, the complainant is directed to pay an amount of Rs.3000/- to the opposite party in the event of which the opposite party shall issue NOC to the complainant.

No order as to cost or compensation.  The complaint is partly allowed and disposed of accordingly.  The order shall be complied within one month from the date of the receipt of this order.

 

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 28th day  of September, 2017.

            Sd/-Sri. Antony  Xavier (Member)     

Sd/-Smt.Elizabeth George (President) Sd/-Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)            

 

 

Appendix:-

Evidence of the complainant:-

PW1 - P.B. Harikumar(Witness)

Ext.A1 series - Copy of Version and statement of account

Ext.A2 - Copy of letter dtd 3/11/16

Evidence of the opposite parties:-  

Ext.B1 - Copy of Statement of accounts.

RW1 - Harikirshnan G(Witness)

 

 

 

 

  // True Copy //                               

 

 By Order                                                                                                   

 

Senior Superintendent

To

         Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.

 

Typed by:- br/-  

Compared by:-