By. Smt. Beena. M, Member:
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. The complainant’s case in brief is as follows:- The case of the complainant is that her husband Jayakumar.B.K.Pilla availed a loan for buying the vehicle Mahindra truck bearing No.KL 21 A 7610 from the opposite party on 06.08.2012. As per the agreement entered between them the entire loan amount should be cleared by paying 46 monthly installments in pursuance to the chart provided by the opposite party on or before 05.07.2016. Thereafter he paid almost half of the loan amount but there is some lag occurred from his part. In the mean time
-2-
husband deserted her. Thereafter on 14.07.2016 the complainant received a Demand Notice from opposite party asking her to pay Rs.12,63,371/-. She further stated that after the enquiry she understood that her husband has obtained her signature during the initial period of their marriage and misused it and made her as a surety of the loan. Later, the complainant surrendered the vehicle to the opposite party on the assurance that they will relieve the complainant from the loan liability and would return the amount after adjusting the sale proceeds of the vehicle. But thereafter also the opposite party demanding for payment and threatening her and not served account statement on her request. She further stated the remaining liability is only become 8 lakhs and the vehicle value is above 15 lakhs. The act of the opposite party is nothing but deficiency in service. Hence she prays for a declaration that the opposite party is not entitle to realize any amount from the complainant and direct the opposite party to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation.
3. The Opposite party entered appearance and filed version. The opposite party admitted the loan transaction and denied the other entire allegations. The opposite party challenged the maintainability of the complaint. The opposite party denied the allegation that the husband of the complainant was forcefully made her as surety to the loan. The complainant voluntarily came before opposite party to become and act as the surety to her husband. The opposite party denied the allegation that the opposite party assured the complainant if she surrender the vehicle they would relieve the complaint from the loan liability is a false statement and against real facts. The opposite party did never catch the vehicle forcefully from
-3-
the complainant and it is voluntarily surrendered by the complainant and there is no deficiency in service taken place on the part of the opposite party at any point of time. The opposite party further averred that they have entitled to take legal steps against the complainant and her husband for realization of the loan debt. Therefore the opposite party prays for dismissal of the complaint.
4. On perusal of complaint and documents the Forum raised the following points for consideration:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation?
3. Relief and cost.
5. On the side of the complainant her Power of Attorney Holder Sukumaran.K.K examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A4 marked. No oral evidence adduced by the opposite party.
6. Point No. 1 :- This is a petition file by the complainant as per Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The relationship, transaction between the parties herein is admitted facts. The only question remains to consider is whether there is any deficiency of service happened from the part of the opposite party. The complainant utterly failed to convince the Forum that she and her husband are not in a good relationship by placing cogent evidence. There are no materials available before the Forum to come to a conclusion that any service deficiency in service and or unlawful activity had been taken place from the part of opposite party. From the
-4-
available evidence it is reveals that there has some amount is due towards the loan transaction. At this juncture, the Forum come to a conclusion that the opposite party is legally entitled to take necessary legal actions against the complainant, who is stood as a guarantor on behalf of her husband for taking vehicle loan. If the complainant has any grievance or complaint against her husband she can very well take appropriate legal action against her husband regarding the signatures was obtained him in an unlawful way. At this point of time there is no scope to interfere the matter. First prayer of the complaint is a drastic one and not deserving any merits at all.
7. Point No.2 :- From the above discussion the Forum found that the complainant failed to establish her case and so she is not entitled to get any compensation from the opposite party.
8.Point No.3:- Since the Points No.1 and 1 2 are found against the complainant, the Forum passing the order regarding relief and cost as follows:-
In the result, the complaint is dismissed without cost.
-5-
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 4th day of December 2019.
Date of Filing: 17.01.2018.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:-
PW1. Sukumaran. K. S. Loading.
Witness for the Opposite Party:-
Nil.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Copy of RC Particulars.
A2. Copy of Repayment Schedule. Dt:24.08.2012.
A3. Copy of Notice. Dt:14.07.2016.
A4. Power of Attorney. Dt:12.02.2019
Exhibits for the opposite party:-
Nil.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/
/True Copy/
Sd/-
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT,
CDRF, WAYANAD.
