By Sri. Mohammed Musthafa Koothradan, Member
1. Complainant's case is that the complainant is the registered owner of the vehicle No.KL.10.Q.9987 TATA Bus. The complainant had avail a finance for the above vehicle under hire purchase from Citicorp Finance (India) Ltd. Then the above named company was amalgamated to Shrachi Securities Ltd., again the Shrachi Security Ltd. was amalgamated to the opposite party. The present company is running in the banner of Magma leasing Ltd and it's head office at Kalkatta. The opposite party representing through their agent at Thrissur. Opposite party No.2 is the Regional Transport Officer at Malappuram. The complainant had made a hire purchase agreement with opposite party No.1 on 12/6/2003 for an amount of Rs.6,50,000/-. The loan had divided into 47 monthly installments at the rate of Rs.19,225/-. The installment start from 12/5/2006. The complainant had paid entire installments in time without any default. The complainant had paid a total amount of Rs.9,82,395/-. As per the chart supplied by the opposite party the complainant was liable to pay Rs.9,03,575/-, in addition to this amount the complainant had paid an additional amount of Rs.78,820/-. After closing the loan the complainant requested the hire purchase termination letter from the opposite party through their representatives. Instead of giving the termination letter opposite party demanded extra amount for closing the loan. The complainant and her family are solely depending upon the income of this Bus. The act of the opposite party amounted a deficient of service. The complainant had suffered heavy mental agony and monetary loss due to the deficiency of service committed by the opposite party. Hence the complaint file and praying that the Honorable forum may be direct to issue hire purchase termination letter, confirmation letter, No objection letter in respect of KL.10.Q 9987TATA Bus or direct the Regional Transport Officer, Malappuram to cancel the endorsement in respect of the above vehicle and direct to return the additional amount of Rs.78,820/- along with an interest of 12% per annum. And also direct to return all documents possessed by the opposite party, award a compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss along with the cost of this compliant.
2. Opposite party No.1 and Opposite party No.2 version filed. Opposite party No.1 denying all averments except those are admitted in the version. Opposite party No.1 states that M/S Citicorp Finance (India) Ltd is a necessary party to this complaint and this complaint is liable to be dismiss for non-jointer of necessary parties. He further states that they have no office within the jurisdiction of this honorable forum. So the Honorable forum does not have a territorial jurisdiction of this case. Further states that the transaction between the complainant and opposite party was a vehicle loan and it was a commercial transaction. So the complainant is not a consumer as defined in the act. Opposite party No.1 admit that they have a channel partner of M/S Citicorp Financial (India) Ltd. It is a manner that this Opposite party became involved in the transaction in relating to the vehicle bearing number KL-10-Q 9987. The complainant statement that she paid all installment amount without default is false. Complainant failed to pay installment amount on the agreement date. So she bounds to pay overdue interest for the default installments. A substantial amount is outstanding from the complainant and complainant is not entitled to get clearance certificate or no due certificate without paying entire amount as per the agreement. The complainant has not approached the first opposite party at any time demanding termination letter or cancellation of endorsement or any such documents. The statement of the complainant that she had paid an excess of an amount of Rs.78,820/- to the first Opposite party is not correct and baseless. A huge substantial amount is outstanding. So the Opposite party has not demanding any illegal amount to the complainant. They have not committed any unfair trade practice or deficiency of service against the complainant. The complaint dismissed in the compensatory cost of this Opposite party.
3. After filing the version the complainant filed I.A.317/2009 for impleading the Opposite party No.3. I.A allowed and impleaded the OP Opposite party No.3. Later name called of Opposite party No.3 and set ex-parte.
4. Evidence adduced by the complainant as affidavit and documents and Ext.A1 to A4 marked and complainant examined as PW1. Opposite party No.1 and Opposite party No.2 filed affidavits and Ext.B1 marked on the side of opposite party No.1.
5. The following points are considered in this matter:-
(a) There is any deficient of service or unfair tried practice in the side of Opposite party?
(b) If so what is the relief?
6. Point (a):-
There is no dispute upon the loan amount, loan date, number of installments and installment amount. The finance amount was Rs.6,50,000/-. Including the interest the repayment amount was Rs.9,03,575/-. The amount divided into 47 equal monthly installments. As per the agreement the payment date was on 12th day of every months. The payment start from 12/......... and the last payment was on 23/6/2007. When going through Ext. A2(s), the bills, the complainant did not pay the installment amount on the particular date mentioned in the agreement. Some days delayed for the installer payment. But the Opposite party calculated the interest for 47 months as flat rate and added with the principle amount and it divided into 47 equal instrumental. Ext.A2(s) shows that the last payment date was on 23/6/2007, but as per agreement the last payment was on 12/5/2007. For the delay of 42 days and other months delay payment the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.78,820/- as additional amount. When going through Ext.B1 documents the complainant had paid additional amount than the agreement amount. The last payment receipt was an amount of Rs.1,73,000/-, it can be a final settlement amount. Considering all circumstances and documentary evidence there is no dues from the complainant into Opposite party No.1 and Opposite party No.3. So Opposite party No.1 and Opposite party No.3 have no right to demand the out standing balance amount of Rs.3,18,524.51. The complainant had produced all documents to prove his complaint.
7. Opposite party No.1 raised a contention upon the jurisdiction of the complaint. The complainant residing within the jurisdiction of this forum and she stated that the agreement had signed in the house of the complainant. More over Opposite party No.2 (R.T.O.) is in the jurisdiction of this forum. So it is not necessary the opposite party conduct business in the limit of this forum. Another contention was the complainant is not in purview of a consumer. The complainant doing the bus service for her and her family livelihood. So the transaction between the complainant and Opposite parties are not a commercial, it must be consider as a consumer.
8. So Opposite party No.1 and Opposite party No.3 had done a deficiency of service and unfair trade practice against the complainant.
9. Point (b):-
The opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.3 have done a deficiency of service and unfair trade practice against the complainant by asking more amount as default over due interest in the loan No. 077-4469588 dated 12th June 2003. Stating these reason the opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.3 were not ready to give hire purchase termination letter, confirmation letter and no objection certificate in respect of the vehicle No. KL-10-Q-9987. In abide circumstances the complainant must get reliant from this Opposite party. But there was some days delay for close the loan monthly installment payment. So the complainant have no right to get additional amount paid by her.
10. In the result we allow the complaint and ordered Opposite party give hire purchase termination letter, confirmation letter and no objection certificate in respect of the vehicle No. KL-10Q-9987 to the complainant within one month from the date of receiving the order copy, failing which opposite party No.2 (R.T.O.) cancel the financial endorsement of the above mentioned vehicle and Opposite party No.1 and Opposite party No.3 returned all documents in connection with the loan No. 077-4469588 dated 12/6/2003. No order to cost.
Dated this 14th day of December, 2011.
Sd/-
C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-
MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : PW1
PW1 : Mujeebrahman Kurikkal, witness on behalf of complainant.
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to A4
Ext.A1 : Computer print of loan repayment schedule given by opposite party to complainant.
Ext.A2 : Receipts(39 Nos.) from opposite party to complainant.
Ext.A3 : Photo copy of the registration certificate in respect of vehicle No.KL10-Q9987
Ext.A4 : Photo copy of the letter from first opposite party to complainant.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Ext.B1
Ext.B1 : Extract of the lodger stored and maintained by company.
Sd/-
C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-
MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER
