DATE OF FILING : 23.3.2016

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 27^th day of February, 2018

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

SRI. BENNY. K. MEMBER

CC NO.105/2016

Between

Complainant : Arun S/o Krishnan,

Kavukattu House,

Vellayamkudi P.O.,

Lakshamveedu Colony,

Kattappana, Idukki.

(By Adv : V.C. Sebastian)

And

Opposite Parties : 1. The Manager,

Chennattumattam Auto Tech,

Mannoor Building,

Vellayamkudi Road,

Kattappana – 685 508,

Idukki.

(By Adv: Sijimon K. Augustine)

2. The Manager,

IndusInd Bank, Kattappana – 685 508,

Idukki.

O R D E R

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

Case of the complainant is that,

Complainant purchased an autorickshaw from 1^st opposite party by paying an amount of Rs.17000/- out of the down pay of Rs.45000/- on 16.6.2015 and agreed to pay the balance amount within 15 days from the date of purchase. At the time of purchase, complainant entrusted 5 cheques to the 1^st opposite party for arranging vehicle finance with 2^nd opposite party. In the meantime complainant failed to remit the balance down payment to opposite party and on 20.9.2015 the 1^st opposite party along with their henchmen took away the autorickshaw from the custody of the complainant forcibly. Thereafter the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party for releasing the vehicle, but 1^st opposite party has not turned up. Complainant further averred that being an

(cont......2)

- 2 -

auto driver, without plying his auto, he cannot remit the monthly instalments of the vehicle finance and moreover, the 1^st opposite party declared that he will sell out the auto.

Complainant further contended the 1^st opposite party has no authority to sell out the auto without prior sanction of the complainant. At the time of availing the vehicle loan by the 1^st opposite party from 2^nd opposite party in the name of the complainant, he entrusted one blank stamp paper along with the signed cheques to the 1^st opposite party. Hence the complainant is under the threat that 1^st opposite party will file false and frivolous cases against him by misusing the blank documents. On further enquiry, complainant came to know that 1^st opposite party sold the auto to some other persons and opposite party is remitting the finance instalments. On getting information about this, the complainant approached opposite parties and at that time, 1^st opposite party informed that he is ready to close the vehicle finance and for that purpose, complainant and opposite party entered into a compromise and the complainant admitted that he was ready to comply the compromise conditions. As per the compromise, 1^st opposite party admitted that he will solve the issue with 2^nd opposite party and return all the documents to the complainant immediately. But thereafter for complying the conditions, complainant approached 1^st opposite party but he has failed to comply the conditions. Hence alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, complainant filed this petition against opposite parties 1 and 2 for getting relief such as to direct the opposite party not to hand over the auto to another person and also direct 1^st opposite party to return the cheques and pronotes which was entrusted by the complainant as security and also direct 1^st opposite party to pay cost and compensation.

1^st opposite party entered appearance and filed detailed version. Opposite party in their version contended that due to the non-payment of HP instalments, 2^nd opposite party planned to seize the vehicle and to proceed against the guarantor and under the mediation of the guarantor, the complainant surrendered the vehicle with this opposite party. This opposite party has every right to get the amount together with interest from the complainant and sell the vehicle for the realisation of the same. Hence there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the part of 1^st opposite party.

Complainant was examined as PW1. Exts.P1 and P2 were marked. Ext.P1 is the copy of receipt showing down payment. Ext.P2 is the receipt of instalments paid. No evidence is adduced from the side of opposite party. (cont......3)

- 3 -

Heard both sides. The point that arose for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?

The POINT :- We have perused the records and deposition of PW1. On going through the averements of the complainant and contentions of the written version, we can see that the allegation against 1^st opposite party alone for releasing the autorickshaw. No allegation against 2^nd opposite party regarding the vehicle finance matter. Moreover, in the proof affidavit it is stated that the matter is settled between the parties. On perusing the deposition of PW1, complainant, he categorically stated that, his prayer is only that, opposite parties are restrained from taking any legal action against the complainant, as the registered owner of the Ape autorickshaw bearing Reg. No.Kl/6/H/183. Admittedly, opposite parties has not raised any objection to this prayer. Hence the matter is considered according to the deposition of PW1, the complainant. It is also to be noticed that 2^nd opposite party has not filed any reply version.

On the basis of the above discussion, the opposite parties 1 and 2 are restrained from initiating any legal proceedings against the complainant, on the basis of his registered ownership of KL/6/H/183 Ape autorickshaw. No cost or compensation is ordered.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 27^th day of February, 2018

Sd/-

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

SRI. BENNY. K., MEMBER

(cont......4)

- 4 -

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1 - Arunkumar K.K.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 - copy of receipt showing down payment.

Ext.P2 - receipt of instalments paid.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

Forwarded by Order,

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT