KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

APPEAL No. 338/2010

JUDGMENT DATED: 13-07-2010

PRESENT:

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU              :   PRESIDENT

1.      Manager,

Shriram City Union Finance Ltd.,

Branch Office, Sulthan Bathery,

Chemmannur Buildings,

Wayanad (Dist).

                                                                             : APPELLANTS

2.      General Manager,

Shriram City Union Finance Ltd.,

Manikathu Cross Road,

Ravipuram, Kochi.

(By Adv:Sri.S.Reghukumar)

          Vs.

Mr. James V.J,

Varakapallil House,

Sasimala.P.O, Pulpally,                            : RESPONDENT

Sulthan Bathery Taluk,

Wayanad (Dist)

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU:   PRESIDENT

The appellant is the opposite party in CC.43/2010 in the file of CDRF, Kalpetta.  The appellant is under orders to refund a sum of Rs.6615/- to the complainant with interest at 12% from 15/9/2009.

2. The case of the complainant is that he had availed finance for the purchase of a Motor cycle from the opposite party and had given post dated cheques.  According to him the opposite party seized the vehicle and he had to pay Rs.18,000/- for releasing the same.  Subsequently he received a letter from the opposite parties asking him to remit Rs.11,385/- and that unless the amount is remitted the vehicle will be sold.  The complainant had settle the dues on 15/9/2009 on payment of Rs.18,000/- whereas the letter subsequently received demanded only Rs.11,385/-.    He has sought for refund of Rs.6615/- the amount paid in excess.

3. The opposite parties/appellants have disputed the genuineness of the alleged re-sale notice dated:26/9/09 claiming a sum of Rs.11,385/-.

4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, Exts.A1 to A5 and B1.

5. We find that the opposite parties/appellants apart from producing the loan agreement have not adduced any evidence.  The Forum on examination of the disputed letter dated:26/9/2009 have observed that there is nothing to disbelieve the genuineness of the above letter.  There is no patent illegality in appreciation of evidence.

In the circumstances we find that there is no scope for admitting the appeal.  The appeal is dismissed in-limine.

The office is directed to forward copy of this order to the Forum.

JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU:   PRESIDENT

VL.