DATE OF FILING : 10.8.2016

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the  30th  day of  October,  2018

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

SRI. BENNY. K. MEMBER

CC NO.230/2016

Between

Complainant       :   Sumathi Divakaran, W/o. Divakaran,

Thandasseril House,    

Amaravathy P.O.,

4th Mile, Chakkupallom, Idukki.

(By Adv:  Gem Korason)

And

Opposite Parties                                          :   1.  Premier Auto Leasing,

       Muvattupuzha.

       Represented by the Manager.   

       (By Adv:  Sibi Thomas)

  2.  Soorya Auto Finance, 

       Kattappana P.O., Idukki.

       Represented by the Manager. 

 

O R D E R

 

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

Case of the complainant is that,

          Complainant availed a vehicle loan of Rs.1,74,000/- from 1st opposite party company, through 2nd opposite party, the agent of 1st opposite party, agreed to repay it with interest in 30 instalments.  The repayment  amount was Rs.1,98,200/- as per the loan agreement.  For sanctioning this loan, the complainant entrusted  blank cheque leaves along with signed printed forms to the 1st opposite party, as they demanded.  The RC book of the vehicle is with the opposite party which was kept as security for the repayment of the loan and a photocopy of the RC book was issued to the complainant.

          The loan amount was collected by the 2nd opposite party and also through another person named Haridas, deputed by the 2nd opposite party.  The  opposite party realized huge amount as penal interest and the complainant  was forced to pay an amount of Rs.217000/- towards loan account.  The last 

(cont....2)

-  2  -

payment was effected by the complainant as per the assurance of the opposite party that there is no further dues and that they will issue  NOC and also return the original  RC Book of the complainant.  As  per the terms of agreement, repayment of loan was started from 11.3.2013.  The tax of the vehicle due from 1.4.2013 to 30.6.2016.  Due to the non-delivery of RC Book, the complainant was unable to pay the tax and hence the complainant kept the vehicle idle.  Even on such a stringent situation, also the complainant had remitted Rs.2,17,000/- towards the loan account.

          The complainant further stated that while  so, on 16.3.2016, the complainant received a notice from the RTO, demanding to remit the tax dues of the vehicle.  On getting the notice, the complainant approached the 1st opposite party and demanded the RC book and NOC.  Instead of issuing the document, in the month of May, 2016, opposite party issued a demand notice to the complainant demanding Rs.93,850/- as loan arrears. On receiving the notice, the complainant contacted 2nd opposite party and after the consultation with 1st opposite party, 2nd opposite party stated that, the issuance of such a notice is mistakenly happened and 1st opposite party assured that there will not be any further proceedings.  The complainant further stated that in the month of June 2016, he received a memo from RTO demanding to pay the vehicle tax, immediately the complainant approached the 1st opposite party and demanded the RC Book and at that time, opposite party demanded Rs.50,000/- for settling the loan account.  Then the complainant realized that, opposite parties are trying to make unlawful gain from the complainant and for the same, the 1st opposite party had purposefully kept the RC Book with them.  On 26.6.2016, the opposite party made an attempt to possess vehicle from the custody of the complainant forcefully.  The complainant has got every right to get the RC Book of the vehicle and the act of the opposite party by keeping the RC Book is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.  Against this, the complainant filed this petition seeking relief such as to direct the opposite party to return the RC book and NOC of the vehicle having Reg No.KL-5L-6538 and also restrained from taking possession of the said vehicle, and further direct the opposite party to pay cost and compensation.

(cont....3)

-  3  -

          On being noticed by the Forum, the opposite party filed their reply by denying all the averments in the complaint.  In their written version, opposite party claimed that the alleged loan was advanced to the complainant on 11.2.2013 and as per the agreement an amount of Rs.1,98,200/- have to be repaid by a total 24 instalments at the rate of Rs.8250/- per month.  Out of this amount, Rs.174000/- is the loan advanced and remaining is the interest.  As per the terms of the agreement, the complainant ought to close the loan on or before 11.2.2015.  Till this date, the complainant repaid only Rs.1,38,750/-.  

1st opposite party further contended that the original RC Book is with the complainant.  1st opposite party has no such an agent like Mr. Haridas and the opposite party has not collected any excess amount from the complainant as alleged.  The RC Book of the vehicle is with the complainant.  HP was noted in the RC Book and is sent directly to the complainant by registered post from the concerned RTO.  Since the RC Book and vehicle is with the complainant, there is no difficulty in remitting the tax.  Opposite party has not demanded any excess amount from the complainant, the complainant ought to remit monthly instalments from 11.7.2014.  Thereafter the opposite party issued legal notices demanding to pay the balance amount.  Matter being so, no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice has happened on the part of the 1st opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

The evidence adduced by the complainant by way of documents alone.  These documents are marked as Exts.P1, P1(a) and P2.  Exts.P1 and P1(a) are the notices issued by the 1st opposite party in favour of the complainant dated 1.6.2016 and 16.3.2016 respectively.  Ext.P2 is the legal notice issued by the opposite party to the complainant.  From the defence side, 1st and 2nd opposite parties were examined and Exts.R1 to R3 marked.  Ext.R1 is the loan account statement.  Ext.R2 is vehicle loan agreement.  Ext.R3 is the visiting card of 2nd opposite party.

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 ?

(cont....4)

-  4  -

The POINT :-   We have heard the counsel for both the parties and had gone through the evidence on record.  It  is an admitted fact that the loan sanctioned to the complainant by the opposite party was Rs.1,74,000/- and the agreement was to repay it with 24 monthly instalments at the rate of Rs.8250/- per month.  Here the case of the complainant is that, instead of total agreed repayment of Rs.1,98,200/-, he repaid an amount of Rs.2,17,000/- in the loan account.  The further allegation of the complainant is that, the RC Book of the vehicle is with the opposite party, eventhough he remitted such a huge amount in the loan account, opposite party is reluctant in handing over the RC Book and NOC of the said vehicle.  Due to that, the complainant cannot remit the vehicle tax.  For finding a solution in this matter, we perused Ext.R2, the copy of vehicle loan register.  On going through this document, we convinced that complainant remitted 17 instalments instead of 24 instalments as he agreed and the last instalment was paid on 11.7.2014.  As per the document, an amount of Rs.62,450/- is pending in this account as on 11.7.2014.  Eventhough the complainant stated that he remitted an amount of Rs.2,17,000/- in this account, not a piece of evidence is produced to corroborate his plea.  Moreover, the Ext.R2 statement of account was not denied or challenged by him.  Hence the Forum is of a considered view that the payment stated in the complaint towards this loan account cannot be admissible or believable and hence such an allegation is unsustainable.

Then regarding to the contention of issuance of RC Book.  In this regard, the version of the 1st opposite party is that, the RC Book of the vehicle is with the complainant, HP was noted in the RC Book and it is sent directly to the complainant by registered post from the concerned RTO.  In this matter also complainant has not produced any evidence to show that, he made sufficient enquiry in the concerned RTO, counter the contention of the opposite party and to convince that, whether the RC Book was issued by the RTO, in the address of the complainant or not.  In this matter also, complainant miserably failed to produce any evidence to fortify his version that, the RC Book is with the opposite party.

On the basis of the above discussion, it is very clear that the complainant is miserably failed to produce any evidence before the Forum corroborating his allegation against the opposite party.  Under the above circumstance, the Forum (cont....5)

-  5  -  

found that absence of clear and cogent evidence, none of the allegation against the opposite party can be considered and hence the complaint dismissed.  No order to cost.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of October, 2018

         Sd/-  

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

SRI. BENNY. K., MEMBER

 

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

Nil.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

DW1              -  Jacob Varghese.

DW2              -  P.K. Gopi.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 and P1(a) -  notices issued by the 1st opposite party.

Ext.P2          -  legal notice issued by the opposite party to the complainant. 

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Ext.R1            -  loan account statement.  

Ext.R2          -  vehicle loan agreement.  

Ext.R3          -  visiting card of 2nd opposite party.