Kerala

StateCommission

A/14/221

M/S MANAPPURAM FINANCE LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

MUHAMMED MUSTAFA - Opp.Party(s)

S. REGHUKUMAR

08 Dec 2015

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NO.221/2014

JUDGMENT DATED 08/12/2015

  

PRESENT:

 

SMT. A. RADHA                            :         MEMBER

SHRI. K. CHANDRADAS NADAR :        JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. SANTHAMMA THOMAS    :        MEMBER

 

 

APPELLANTS:

 

1.  M/s. Manappuram Finance Limited.,

Corporate and Regd. Office, Manappuram House,

P.O. Valappad, Thrissur, Kerala-680 567.

 

2.  The Managing Director, Authorized Signatory,

  M/s. Manappuram Finance Limited.,

 Corporate and Regd. Office, Manappuram House,

 P.O. Valappad, Thrissur, Kerala-680 567.

 

3. The Manager, Manappuram Finance Limited,

Branch Office, Kodathipadi, Mannarkkad,

Palakkad District, Presently working at

Manappuram Finance Limited, Branch Office,

Vellan Road, Sulthanpet, Palakkad-678 001.

 

4.  Binu (staff), Manappuram Finance Limited,

 Branch Office, Kodathipadi, Mannarkkad,

 Palakkad District – Presently working at

 Manappuram Finance Limited, Branch Office,

 Vellan Road, Sulthanpet, Palakkad-678 001.

 

                   (By Adv:  S. Reghukumar)            

       

                       

Vs

RESPONDENT:

 Muhammed Musthafa, S/o. Mr. Hamza,

Murandiyil House, Vazhempuram Post,

Karakurussi, Mannarkkad Taluk,

Palakkad-678 595 – Rep: by Power of Attorney

Holder and Brother, Mohammed Faizal, S/o. Hamza,

Murandiyil House, Vazhempuram Post, Karakurussi,

Mannarkkad Taluk, Palakkad-678 595.

           

(By Adv:  K. Dhananjayan.K)  

                

 

JUDGMENT

 

SMT. A. RADHA  :  MEMBER

 

          This appeal is preferred by the opposite parties against the order passed in C.C.No.51/2013 on the file of CDRF, Palakkad.

          2.  It is the case of the complainant that the complainant availed a vehicle loan from the 3^rd opposite party for an amount of Rs.1,14,000/- for the purchase of 3 wheeler and entered into hypothecation agreement on 30/05/2007.  The complainant has to remit Rs.4,635/- per month in 48 equated instalments and the loan would be completed in 28/02/2011. It is the allegation of the complainant that he was compelled to handover 20 signed unfilled cheque leaves drawn on the opposite party bank.  The complainant was using the vehicle for self employment purpose and was using it for his livelihood.  As the complainant obtained job in Gulf Countries the complainant surrendered the vehicle to the 3^rd opposite party on 02/09/2009.  He had already remitted Rs.72,508/- and the vehicle has been surrendered to 3^rd opposite party for the outstanding dues which comes to Rs.41,492/-.  The complainant alleges deficiency of service even after surrendering the vehicle and on payment of Rs.72,508/- on 15/6/2012 the complainant received a notice from the opposite party demanding to remit Rs.2,05,050/- towards the loan amount.            The complaint is filed to cancel the demand notice and also for Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the mental agony sustained by the complainant.  Further prayer is for direction to return the 20 cheque leaves entrusted to the opposite parties and also to issue non- liability certificate for lifting the endorsement in the RC regarding the hypothecation of vehicle.

          3.  The 4^th opposite party filed version on behalf of all other opposite parties contending that the complaint is barred by limitation and is liable to be dismissed.  It is admitted that the complainant availed a vehicle loan under hire purchase agreement on 30/05/2007 and the repayment has to be paid in 48 monthly instalments.  The complainant had defaulted the payment of monthly instalments.  It is also admitted that the complainant surrendered the vehicle as he was not in a position to clear the dues.  A demand notice was issued to the complainant and surety on 15/6/2012 to pay an amount of Rs.2,05,015/-  towards the hire purchase loan account.  As per the agreement executed between the parties the opposite parties are entitled to recover all the dues.  The vehicle was auctioned through public auction and the auction details were published in Mathrubhoomi Daily.   A surveyor was appointed to assess the value of the vehicle and assessed the vehicle for Rs.45,000/-.  On 29/01/2010 the vehicle was sold in public auction for Rs.45,215/- and the sale proceeds of the vehicle was credited to the loan account of the complainant.  The balance due was duly intimated to the complainant as per notice dated 22/02/2010.  The complainant is liable to pay the loan amount as agreed upon in the hire purchase agreement.  The complainant is liable to pay an amount of Rs.2,05,015/- due from the complainant and opposite parties are entitled to recover the amount.

          4.  Both parties filed affidavit and PW1 was examined on the part of the complainant.  Exbts. A1 to A8 series were marked on the side of the complainant and Exbts. B1 to B11 were marked on the part of opposite parties.  On appreciation of documents and evidence the District Forum partly allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay Rs.1 Lakh as compensation and Rs.2000/- as cost of proceedings.

5.  It is argued by the counsel for the appellant that the respondent availed a vehicle loan from the 3^rd opposite party under hire purchase agreement on 30/5/2007 for an amount of Rs.1,14,000/- which has to be paid in 48 monthly instalments.  Though some instalments were paid by the complainant the remaining instalments were defaulted and left for Gulf Countries.  Before leaving the country, the vehicle was surrendered to the         3^rd opposite party.  As on the date of surrender an amount of Rs.86,724/- was due from the respondent.  On issuance of notice regarding the sale of the vehicle for auction was published in Mathrubhoomi Daily.  In the meantime the vehicle was valued by a licensed surveyor and valued the vehicle for Rs.45,000/-.  In public auction an amount of Rs.45,250/- received towards the sale proceeds which was adjusted towards the loan account of the respondent.  Balance amount of Rs.1,09,100/- was due which was intimated to the respondent after the auction.  Till the date of issuance of the demand notice on 15/6/2012 the balance along with its finance charges were not remitted by the respondent.  The appellants are entitled for the amount as per the hire purchase agreement.  The Forum Below without looking into the agreement and between the parties carried away by the respondent’s pleadings.  The complaint is filed with ulterior motive to escape from the liability to pay the dues to the appellant.  The complainant is not entitled for any compensation as he is only a debtor to the appellant.  The hire purchase agreement is purely based on the terms and conditions for availing the loan.  The parties are bound by the contract and the respondent is liable to pay the entire amount claimed by the appellant.

          6.  It is submitted by the counsel for the respondent that the respondent had already remitted Rs.72,508/- and surrendered the vehicle for the balance amount of Rs.41,492/-.  The complainant was not in a position to pay the balance amount and surrendered the vehicle.  The loan availed on hire purchase agreement was only for Rs.1,14,000/- which is to be paid in 48 instalments from 30/05/2007 and the EMI till 28/02/2011.  The respondent was using the vehicle for self employment for his livelihood.  The respondent already handed over signed unfilled cheque leaves drawn on Service         Co-operative Bank of the complainant.  As per the statement itself the vehicle was already sold in public auction for Rs.45,250/- which was adjusted to the loan account of the respondent.  Hence no dues left against the loan account of the respondent.  The respondent requested for non liability certificate in order to remove the hypothecation in the RC book.  It is to the surprise of the respondent that the appellants issued a demand notice for Rs.2,05,015/- on 15/06/2012 which is highly arbitrary and the respondent is not liable to pay any amount towards the loan account which had already closed in 2009.  The issuance of the demand notice caused mental agony and the complainant filed the complaint for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice of the appellant/opposite parties.  Hence the respondent is entitled for compensation for mental agony and claimed for Rs.1,00,000/- and cost of proceedings.

          7.  We have heard both parties in detail and perused the documents.  It is an undisputed fact that the complainant entered into a hire purchase agreement and availed a loan for Rs.1,14,000/-  for the purchase of a three wheeler.  The loan is to be paid in                48 instalments at Rs.4,635/- per month.  It is clear from the documents that the complainant remitted an amount Rs.75,508/-  and  defaulted  the balance amount.  It is also clear from documents that the vehicle was surrendered to the 3^rd opposite party/appellant and the vehicle was sold in public auction and fetched Rs.45,250/- which was adjusted towards the complainant’s loan account  as on the day of remittance of the sale proceedings.  The amount due to the opposite party as on 4/2/2010 comes to Rs.64,556/- as per Exbt. B₁₁ produced by the opposite parties.  The opposite party had to close that account as on that day which was not done in this case.  The demand notice was issued for Rs.2,05,015/- on 15/6/2012.  The laches in issuing the notice to the complainant after 2 years cannot be burdened upon the respondent.  In the instant case, the respondent had already surrendered the vehicle as he could not remit the instalments in time and requested for adjusting the sale proceeds to the loan account.  We would like to point out that the vehicle is of 2007 model and the vehicle surrendered in 2009.  As per the Insurance Rules the IDV is to be calculated for vehicles exceeding one year but not exceeding 2 years, the depreciation is to be calculated 20%.  In the instant case, the surveyor assessed only for Rs.45,000/- and the sale proceeds shown as Rs.45,250/-.  The Forum Below ignored the fact that the hire purchase agreement is based on the terms and conditions and the contract is binding on the parties.  It is true that the respondent defaulted the payments and he remitted Rs.72,508/- along with the finance charges and surrendered the vehicle.  We are of the considered view that the appellants are eligible for Rs.64,556/- and the complainant is liable to pay the amount towards the loan account as on 4/2/2010.  We find that the appellant is eligible to recover Rs.64,556/- with 6% interest from 4/2/2010 till realization.

          In the result, appeal is allowed in part and the order to pay compensation is set-aside.  The appellants are entitled to recover Rs.65,556/- with 6% interest from 04/02/2010 till realization from the complainant. 

The office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Forum Below along with LCR.

 

 

A. RADHA              :                MEMBER

 

 

 

K. CHANDRADAS NADAR  :        JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

 

 SANTHAMMA THOMAS    :        MEMBER

 

 

Sa.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER

 DISPUTES REDRESSAL

                                                           COMMISSION

      THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPEAL NO.221/2014

JUDGMENT DATED 08/12/2015

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sa.