Kerala

Idukki

CC/8/2017

Santhosh Manakkal - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager Union Auto Crest - Opp.Party(s)

Adv.Lissy M M

30 Jan 2019

ORDER

DATE OF FILING : 13.1.2017
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI
Dated this the  30th  day of  January,  2019
Present :
        SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR                PRESIDENT
              SMT. ASAMOL. P                                        MEMBER
CC NO.8/2017
Between
Complainant                      :    Santhosh, S/o. Francis,
                             Manakkal House,
                             Pazhayarikandam P.O.,
                             Kanjikkuzhy, Idukki.
                            (By Adv: Lissy M.M.)
And
Opposite Party                                          :    The Manager,
                             Union Auto Credit,
                             St. Mary's Building,
                             Murickassery, Idukki.
                            (By Adv: Padayattee Yeldo)
O R D E R

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

Case of the complainant is that :

    Complainant availed a vehicle loan of Rs.90000/- from the opposite party financier in the year 2010 and agreed to repay it with 21 instalments at the rate of Rs.5650/-.  In 9.5.2012, the complainant paid full loan amount and demanded to issue the NOC to the complainant's vehicle , but the opposite party has not issued the NOC.  In the meantime, the vehicle was taken in the custody of the Divisional Forest Officer, in connection with a case No.OR 20/2012.  This vehicle was released only in 2014.  After 9.5.2012, the opposite party has not demanded any amount as loan dues in the said loan account.  If any amount is left in the said loan, now it is time barred debt and the opposite party cannot raise any claim over it.  

    Complainant further stated that on 18.12.2016, the opposite party sent a lawyer notice to the complainant and his surety demanding Rs.2,00,400/- as loan dues.  After remitting the entire loan amount, demanding a huge amount from the complainant and  not issuing the NOC to the complainant's vehicle is gross deficiency in service.  Against this
                                                  (cont....2)
-  2  -
complainant filed this petition for allowing the reliefs such as to direct the opposite parties to issue NOC to the complainant's vehicle having Reg. No.KL05-C6195 and declare that the complainant is not liable to pay any amount as loan dues and also direct the opposite party to a compensation of Rs.10000/- to the complainant.

    Upon notice, opposite party entered appearance and filed detailed reply version.  In this version, opposite party admitted the availing of vehicle loan to the complainant on 9.8.2010 for an amount of Rs.98,000/-.  Opposite party further contended that on 7.2.2012, there was  an arrear  of Rs.42,238/- in this loan account and the complainant availed a 2nd loan on the same day on the security of the same vehicle for a sum of Rs.90,500/- agreeing to repay the loan by 23 instalments at the rate of Rs.4680/- per month and last instalment is Rs.4580/-.  But the complainant defaulted in the loan repayment.  Complainant filed this complaint by suppressing the above facts before the Forum and trying to mislead the Forum.  Opposite party further contended that the loan was renewed upon his request and the aim of the complainant is to evade from remitting by illegal intention.  The complainant did not pay any amount as on 9.5.2012 for closing the loan.  There was no demand for NOC to close the finance noted in the RC Book.  Demand notice issued to urge the complainant about the arrears and to persuade him to redeem the loan and close the Hire Purchase Agreement.  Matter being so, no question of deficiency in service is arising in this matter.  

    Evidence adduced by the complainant and opposite party by way of proof affidavit and documents.  The document such as passbook issued by the opposite party, copy of RC Book, vehicle release order, legal notice issued by opposite party, notice issued from Divisional Forest Office, Kothamangalam are marked as Exts.P1 to P5 respectively.

    The documents such as  hire purchase proposal of the complainant dated 7.2.2012, hire purchase application of the complainant dated 7.2.2012, hire purchase agreement dated 7.2.2012 in the name of the complainant, repayment schedule,  true copy of hire purchase ledger dated 9.8.2010 and copy of hire purchase ledger dated 7.2.2012 are produced by the opposite party and marked as Exts.R1 to R6 respectively.  Original receipt books are marked as Exts.R7, R8 and R9 respectively.      (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 party and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?                  
    The POINT :-  We have heard the learned counsels for both sides and had gone through the evidence on records.  The learned counsel for the complainant argued that he closed the loan account with the opposite party on 9.5.2012 and till 18.12.2016, opposite party has not demanded any amount as loan dues.  Moreover, the vehicle which was given as security was possessed by the Forest authorities in connection with a forest case.  The counsel further submitted that if any amount is due in the loan account, now it is time barred.  At the same time, learned counsel for the opposite party vehemently argued that they sanctioned a vehicle loan to the complainant as said in the complaint and on 7.2.2012 the entire loan dues of Rs.42238/- was closed by the complainant and on the same day the complainant applied for a new vehicle loan of Rs.1 lakh.  Being a bonafide customer, opposite party granted the 2nd loan of Rs.90,500/- on the basis of the hire purchase agreement executed by the complainant and agreed to repay the loan with 24 monthly instalments.  But the complainant paid only 4 instalments in this loan account.  The loan period was till 7.2.2014.  For substantiating their plea, opposite party produced Ext.R1 to R6 documents discussed above.  The complainant produced 5 documents and filed an Interim Application for directing the opposite party to produce the loan details of the complainant in the year 2010.  In the reply to this petition, opposite party produced original ledger  of 2010-11 and 3 receipt books of the year 2012.   On perusal of these documents, it is seen that, the 2nd loan was granted to the complainant by the opposite party on 7.2.2012 by pledging the same vehicle and the opposite party paid only 4  instalments in this loan account through vide receipt Nos.1944 dated 12.3.2012, 2040 dated 10.4.2012 and 2529 dated 11.6.2012.  In this loan account as per Ext.R6 loan account statement, complainant remitted only an amount of Rs.18800/- in total.  As per averements in the complaint, the vehicle was taken in the custody of the Forest authority on 28.102012.  As per Ext.P3, the Judicial I Class Magistrate passed a release order of the vehicle on 22.9.2016.  As per the averments, the vehicle was released in 2014.  In the complaint, complainant further averred that the opposite
                                             (cont....4)
-  4  -
party has not demanded any amount after 9.5.2012 as loan dues and if any amount is due in the loan account, now it is time barred and opposite party has no right to claim over it.  In this case, as already said, the complainant denied the issuance of 2nd loan and he filed a petition to direct the opposite party to produce the loan documents of the redeemed loan in the year 2010.  Instead of producing the loan application of  2010, opposite party produced some other documents showing that complainant applied for the loan in the year 2012.  As per the version of opposite party, complainant closed previous loan on 7.2.2012 and they granted a 2nd loan on the same day itself.  The documents which produced by the opposite party showing the details of the 2nd loan are challenged by the complainant.  At this juncture, a pertinent question arises that as per the statement of opposite party, in the 2nd loan, complainant remitted only 4 instalments from 7.3.2012 to 11.6.2012 and what prevented the opposite party to demand the outstanding loan dues from the complainant till 18.12.2016.  On a mere perusal of these documents, we can see that for a long period of 4 years, opposite party kept mum in realising the loan dues from the complainant. As per records, only on 18.12.2016, opposite party issued Ext.P3 demand notice to the complainant demanding to remit an amount of Rs.200400/- as loan arrears.  

    Opposite party has not adduced any plausible evidence to convince the Forum that what prevented them to initiate the recovery proceedings against the complainant for a long period of nearly 4 years.  Opposite party has not adduced any evidence to show that how much amount is remitted in the loan and what is the total loan dues and how they arrived the loan outstanding dues as Rs.200400/-.  On perusing Ext.P3 notice, the Forum found that this notice is incomplete and not having loan details to convince that how they calculated the loan dues.  Also no statement of account is produced.  It is the bounden duty of the opposite party to issue a clear and specific notice to the customer by stating the actual loan dues and penal interest and other incidental charges.  Here, opposite party is not levelled any thing in the notice regarding the loan dues as they demanded.  So this notice cannot be considered as valid one and the Forum is constrained to believe the version of the complainant in this matter.  It is seen that opposite party is miserably failed to convince the Forum regarding the issuance of 2nd loan to the complainant.  Moreover, opposite party failed to
                                            (cont....5)
-  5  -
produce the loan details of the complainant in the year 2010.  Under the above circumstances, the Forum is of a considered view that the allegation levelled against the opposite party by the complainant is true and sustainable.  

    Hence the complaint allowed.  Opposite party is directed to withdraw the  Ext.P3 notice and issue NOC to the vehicle of the complainant having Reg. No.KL-5C-6195.  No order to cost and compensation.

    Pronounced in the Open Forum on the 30th day of January, 2019
                                        Sd/-
                               SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT
                                        Sd/-
                                                SMT. ASAMOL. P, MEMBER

APPENDIX
Depositions :
Nil.
Exhibits :
On the side of the Complainant :
Ext.P1         -    passbook issued by the opposite party.
Ext.P2         -   copy of RC Book.
Ext.P3         -   vehicle release order passed by  the Judicial I Class
              Magistrate
Ext.P4         -   legal notice issued by opposite party.
Ext.P5         -   notice issued from Divisional Forest Office, Kothamangalam.
On the side of the Opposite Party :
Ext.R1            -   hire purchase proposal of the complainant dated 7.2.2012.
Ext.R2            -  hire purchase application of the complainant dated 7.2.2012.
Ext.R3            -  hire purchase agreement dated 7.2.2012 in the name of
              the complainant.
Ext.R4            -  repayment schedule.  
Ext.R5            -   true copy of hire purchase ledger dated 9.8.2010.
Ext.R6            -    copy of hire purchase ledger dated 7.2.2012.
Exts.R7 & R7(a) -   Receipt book with receipt No.1944.
Exts.R8 & R8(a) -   Receipt book with receipt No.2040.
Exts.R9 & R9(a) -   Receipt book with receipt No.2529
                                           Forwarded by Order,

 

                                      SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT