KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 783/2015
JUDGMENT DATED: 27.02.2020
(Against the order in C.C 53/2014 of CDRF, Idukki)
PRESENT :
SRI. T.S.P MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER
APPELLANT:
Abdul Rasheed, Pallithadathil House, Ramakkalmedu P.O, Idukki District.
(By Adv. Rajmohan C.S.)
Vs.
RESPONDENTS:
- The Managing Director, Tata Motors Finance Ltd., DGP House, 4th Floor, Old Prabhadevi Road, Mumbai-400 025.
- The Area Manager, Tata Motors Finance Ltd., Smart Centre, 4th Floor, Civil Lanes Road, Chembumukku, Cochin.
- The Manager, Tata Motors Finance Ltd., Housing Board Complex, Kattappana Branch Office, Kattappana P.O, Idukki District.
(By Adv. N.U. Nampoothiri)
JUDGMENT
SRI. T.S.P. MOOSATH: JUDICIAL MEMBER
The complainant in C.C. No. 53/2014 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Idukki, in short the District Forum, has filed the appeal against the order passed by the District Forum by which the complaint filed by him was dismissed.
2. The averments contained in the complaint are, in brief, as follows: Complainant who is the owner of a Tata 407 lorry bearing Reg. No. KL-06 D-423, availed a loan of Rs. 4,50,000/- from the opposite parties on 02.12.2005 and it was agreed to repay in 60 monthly installments. After paying 9 installments promptly, he was not in a position to repay the balance amount. So he transferred the vehicle to one Johnson and the entire loan amount has been repaid by the said Johnson on 21.05.2007 and also obtained clearance certificate from the RTO, Vandiperiyar. After that the said Johnson transferred the vehicle to one Santhosh and the said Santhosh transferred the registration of the vehicle before the RTO, Malappuram on 01.07.2007 and Rs. 1,452/- was paid as tax. Again the said Santhosh transferred the said vehicle to one Shameer. On 01.10.2007 the said Shameer availed a loan from M/s Shriram Transport Finances Ltd. for the vehicle. So the loan account of the complainant was already closed and he is not liable to pay any amount. But the opposite party issued a legal notice on 02.01.2014 demanding huge amount from the complainant. The opposite parties have no right to demand such a huge amount as Rs. 13,20,323.25 from the complainant. So the complaint is filed for directing the opposite party, that the complainant is not liable to pay the loan amount and also for compensation.
3. Opposite parties filed version raising the following contentions. The complainant availed a loan of Rs. 4,51,000/- which was to be repaid in 47 monthly installments of Rs. 11,800/- each starting from 02.11.2006 and terminating on 02.11.2009. The averment that the complainant paid the entire loan amount to the opposite party on 21.05.2007 and obtained clearance certificate from the Vandiperiyar RTO is not correct. The opposite parties never received any amount from the complainant towards the loan account nor the opposite party given clearance certificate to the complainant. The complainant has forged the certificates of the opposite parties for obtaining clearance certificate from the RTO. After forging the documents of the opposite parties, he transferred the vehicle to other persons. The opposite parties are also initiating criminal proceedings against the complainant for forging the documents of the opposite parties and for producing the same before the RTO for clearing the vehicle from the hypothecation of the opposite parties. The complainant is liable to pay an amount of Rs. 13,57,465/- to the opposite parties. So the complaint is liable to be dismissed under Sec. 26 of the Consumer Protection Act with costs.
4. No oral evidence was adduced by both sides. Exts. P1 to P4 were marked on the side of the complainant and Exts. R1 and R2 were marked on the side of the opposite parties. After considering the evidence adduced by the parties and hearing both sides the District Forum has passed the impugned order by which the complaint was dismissed. Aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum the complainant has preferred this appeal.
5. Heard both sides. Perused the records.
6. There is no dispute to the fact that on 21.02.2005 the complainant availed a loan of Rs. 4,50,000/- from the opposite parties after executing a loan agreement and the amount has to be repaid in monthly installments. According to the complainant he paid 9 installments promptly and since he was not in a position to repay the balance amount he sold the vehicle to one Johnson and he agreed to pay the loan amount. Subsequently the said Johnson paid the entire loan amount to the opposite parties and obtained clearance certificate from the RTO, Vandiperiyar. Later he transferred the vehicle to one Santhosh and Santhosh transferred the vehicle to one Shameer. While so on 02.01.2014 the opposite parties issued a notice to the complainant to pay Rs. 13,20,323.25 towards the loan transaction. They have no right to realize any amount from the complainant. It is the case of the opposite parties that the complainant defaulted in payment of the installments and he is liable to pay an amount of Rs. 13,57,465/- to them. It is contended by the opposite parties that they never issued any No Objection Certificate/clearance certificate to be produced before the RTO and the complainant has forged documents and produced before the RTO and got transfer of the vehicle to another person. So, criminal proceedings were initiated against the complainant. The complainant is liable to pay the amount to the opposite parties.
7. The District Forum found that the complainant has not produced receipts regarding the alleged payment of the amounts to the opposite parties and he has also not produced the No Objection Certificate/clearance certificate alleged to have issued by the opposite parties. It is the case of the opposite parties that they never issued No Objection Certificate/clearance certificate to the complainant and complainant forged the documents and produced before the RTO and so they have initiated criminal proceedings against the complainant. Whether the complainant had forged the documents is a matter to be considered in appropriate proceedings. The complaint is filed by the Power of Attorney holder of the complainant, Abdul Rasheed. But the Power of Attorney executed by the complainant in favour of the person who filed the complaint is not produced. Even the name of the Power of Attorney holder who has filed the complaint is not mentioned in the complaint. Ext. R2 shows that the opposite parties had taken arbitration proceedings against the complainant regarding the disputed amount and the arbitrator passed an award on 30.04.2010. The complainant has filed the complaint before the District Forum on 28.01.2014, after about 4 years from passing of the award by the arbitrator. In “Instalment Supply Ltd. Vs. Kangra Ex-Serviceman Transport I (2007) CPJ 34 (NC)” the National Commission held that “the Consumer Fora cannot decide a complaint after an arbitration award has already passed”. So the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable before the District Forum. For the reasons stated above, it can be seen that there is no reason/ground to interfere with the order passed by the District Forum, by which the complaint was dismissed. So the appeal is to be dismissed.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.
T.S.P MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER
K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER
jb
