BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PRESENT
SRI. P. SUDHIR : PRESIDENT
SMT. R. SATHI : MEMBER
SMT. LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
C.C. No. 249/2012 Filed on 31.07.2012
ORDER DATED: 30.03.2016
Complainant:
D. Mariyan, S/o Devadasan, T.C 47/589, Cheriyamuttom, Poonthura, Poonthura P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. G. Jayakumar)
Opposite parties:
- M/s Manappuram Finance ltd., having its registered office at Manappuram House, Valapad Post, Thrissur, Kerala-680 567.
- The Branch Manager, Manappuram Finance Ltd, Thiruvananthapuram branch having its Branch Code 78, 1st floor, Capri Building, Ward No. 1, Near Pazhavangadi Temple, East Fort, Thiruvananthapuram-695 023.
(By Adv. Asok Kumar. J.S)
This C.C having been heard on 14.01.2016, the Forum on 30.03.2016 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. R. SATHI: MEMBER
In this instant case the complainant attracted on the offers of the opposite parties approached the 2nd opposite party seeking financial assistance for purchasing a Vikram 750 diesel motor cab fetching an on road price of Rs. 1,90,000/- on 19.05.2007 the complainant entered into an agreement with opposite parties and availed a hire purchase loan of Rs. 1,40,000/- for purchasing the above said vehicle. The complainant’s wife Preeja and brother-in-law Raymond are sureties. The complainant and the sureties affixed their signatures in all the papers written in English even though he and the sureties are illiterate. The opposite party also collected series of cheques signed by Preeja. He was told that the loan amount has to be repaid in 48 EMIs at Rs. 4,873/- per month starting from July 2007. The complainant purchased the above said vehicle by paying Rs. 50,000/- along with the loan amount of Rs. 1,40,000/- advanced by opposite parties and duly registered on 25.05.2007. The complainant promptly repay the amount till November 2007 and unable to repay from December 2007. On 05.04.2008 therefore people of the 2nd opposite party visited the complainant at his house and taken possession of the vehicle without giving any prior notice or information. At the time of taking possession it was told that the vehicle will be returned on clearing the dues. They also endorsed the signature of complainant in a paper brought by them which was written in English stating that it is an acknowledgement of possession. The complainant received a letter dated 29.09.2008 through which it was intimated that the vehicle was sold for Rs. 16,500/-. Immediately the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party protested against the sale of new vehicle having cost of Rs. 1,90,000/- for Rs. 16,500/-. Thereafter the complainant and sureties received a notice dated 14.10.2010 from the 1st opposite party claiming that complainant was liable to pay Rs. 2,77,829/- and intimated that the matter is going before the arbitrator. Preeja, one of the sureties, received summons from Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thrissur directing her to appear before court. The sureties received notice dated 15.06.2012 from the 1st opposite party claiming Rs. 3,78,581/-. The complainant is ready to remit any legal amount that is due to the opposite party. The act of opposite party by seizing a brand new vehicle, selling it without complying legal formalities amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complainant approached this Forum directing the opposite parties to pay Rs. 1,90,000/- to the complainant along with 18% interest from the date of illegal possession along with compensation of Rs. 20,000/- and cost of Rs. 10,000/-.
The opposite party accepted notice, entered appearance and filed version. The main contention raised by the opposite party is that the complaint is barred by limitation. The alleged surrender/seizure of vehicle was happened on 05.04.2008 and as such complaint is not maintainable. The opposite party processed the loan as per the request of the complainant and sanctioned Rs. 1,40,000/-. The complainant along with his sureties had expressly undertake that they will comply with the conditions in the hypothecation agreement. The complainant and co-obligants are fully aware of the loan agreement and opposite party officers explained the contents of each page to the complainant and his co-obligants in Malayalam before signing each page. No series of cheques were obtained by the opposite party as alleged by the complainant. An amount of Rs. 1,40,000/- was sanctioned as loan amount and the loan period was 48 months starting from July 2007. The complainant had used the vehicle profitably and extensively but repaid only for 5 months. In December 2007 complainant approached the 2nd opposite party office and explained his difficulties and wanted to close the hypothecation agreement. The complainant had paid only a meager amount till 2008 April. Thereafter the complainant was asked to surrender the vehicle and complainant and his wife came to the 2nd opposite party office on 05.04.2008 and surrendered the vehicle. At that time condition of the vehicle was very bad and the whole body was rusted and broken at many places. The opposite parties had informed the complainant and his wife about the proposed sale. The registered notice sent on 07.05.2008 to them are returned unclaimed. The sale of vehicle took place on 13.06.2008. The complainant had complied with all legal formalities before effecting the sale. The complainant and his wife were negotiated with the opposite parties on 20.12.2008 at the office of the opposite parties and gave a cheque for Rs. 1,67,378/- being the balance amount due in the loan account till that date. The said cheque was dishonoured and opposite party filed criminal complaint. The complainant and his sureties deliberately avoided paying the amount due to the opposite parties and the opposite parties initiated legal proceedings. The complainant is not entitled to get any amount from the opposite party or interest as alleged. The complainant is only hirer of the vehicle and therefore is not entitled to any reliefs. Hence complaint is only to be dismissed.
The complainant filed affidavit and Exts. P1 to P10 marked. PW1 and PW2 are examined from complainant’s side. Opposite party also filed affidavit and Exts. D1 to D8 marked. DW1 and DW2 are examined on opposite party’s side.
Issues:
- Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the opposite party’s side?
- Whether the complainant is eligible for the reliefs as sought for?
Issues (i) to (iii):- The opposite parties in their version itself raise the issue of limitation. They filed a separate petition for hearing the maintainability issue. In that petition ordered that the maintainability petition can be considered along with the original complaint after detailed evidence.
In the complaint, the complainant stated that on 05.04.2008, 3-4 people from opposite party office took possession of the vehicle after endorsing his signature on the paper. But it was written in English and could not understand what is in it. If we consider this, in the next paragraph of complaint he admits that he received a letter dated 29.09.2008 through which it was intimated that the said vehicle was sold for Rs. 16,500/-. Thus on going through the deposition of complainant also he very well stated that he has knowledge about the letter on 07.05.2008 about sale of the vehicle. The opposite parties produced Ext. D1 letter, returned, after giving intimation. The main relief sought by the complainant is for directing the opposite parties to pay Rs. 1,90,000/- levying the cost of the vehicle illegally possessed and sold by the opposite parties along with 18% interest from the date of taking the illegal possession. Then whether the question of limitation starts on the date of repossession or on the date of knowledge of sale. The complainant also alleges that the vehicle was illegally repossessed by the opposite parties and his main concern is about the illegal repossession. If it is so, we are of the firm view that the complainant ought to have approached the Forum within the period of limitation which starts from the date of illegal repossession or at least from the date of notice on 07.05.2008. It is observed that the complaint is filed only on July 2012 i.e; after 4 years which is beyond the period of limitation as fixed by the Consumer Protection Act. The opposite parties have also challenged the question of limitation. The complainant has not filed any petition to condone the delay showing sufficient reasons. Hence it is our considered view that the complaint is barred by limitation. Hence the other two issues are not discussed.
In the result, complaint is dismissed.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 30th day of March 2016.
Sd/-
R. SATHI : MEMBER
Sd/-
P. SUDHIR : PRESIDENT
Sd/-
LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
C.C. No. 249/2012
APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:
PW1 - Mariyan
PW2 - Preeja
II COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:
P1 - Copy of R.C Book of KL-01 AQ 7214.
P2 - Copy of surrender letter dated 05.04.2008
P3 - Copy of hire purchase agreement letter of opposite party dated
29.09.2008.
P4 - Copy of settlement letter of opposite party dated 14.10.2010.
P5 - Copy of Proclamation Requiring the Appearance dated 20.08.2011
P6 - Copy of registered letter from advocate dated 15.11.2010
P7 - Copy of the complaint
P8 - Copy of transfer petition dated 23.02.2012
P9 - Copy of settlement letter dated 15.06.2012
P10 - Copy of letter from Adv. G. Jayakumar dated 23.07.2012.
III OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:
DW1 - N.G. Priyalal
DW2 - Harikrishnan G.P
IV OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:
D1 - Registered letter to complainant
D2 - Copy of vehicle loan-cum hypothecation agreement
D3 - Authorization letter dated 11.07.2014.
D4 - Letter issued by opposite party to complainant dated 05.05.2008
D5 - Valuation Report dated 10.06.2008.
D6 - Copy of newspaper cutting
D7 - Agreement
D8 - Hypo Debtor Accounts letter dated 15.06.2012
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
jb
