State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
. Babu.P.S vs Vinay Finance Corporation on 20 August, 2013
Daily Order
Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Vazhuthacaud,Thiruvananthapuram First Appeal No. A/12/167 (Arisen out of Order Dated 22/12/2011 in Case No. CC/11/125 of District Pathanamthitta) 1. BABU.P.S SADASIVAN PILLAI,SANTHOSH JUNCTION PATHANAMTHITTA KERALA ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. VINAY FINANCE CORPORATION 82,AUDIPPA NAICKAN STREET,SOW CARPET CHENNAI TAMILNADU ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'ABLE MR. SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR PRESIDING MEMBER SMT.A.RADHA MEMBER SMT.SANTHAMMA THOMAS MEMBER PRESENT: ORDER
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO.167/12
JUDGMENT DTD:20/08/2013
(Appeal filed against the order in C.C. No. 125/2011 on the file of CDRF, Pathanamthitta, dt: 22.12.2011)
PRESENT
SHRI.K. CHANDRADAS NADAR -- JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. A. RADHA -- MEMBER SMT. SANTHAMMA THOMAS -- MEMBER Babu. P.S., S/o.Late Sadasivan Pillai, Residing at Puthen Veedu, Santhosh Junction, Pathanamthitta -- APPELLANT Muri and Village, Pathanamthitta. (By Adv. Sri.Aniyoor K. Venugopalan Nair) V/s. 1. Vinay Finance Corporation, 32 Audippa Naicken Street, Ground Floor, Sow Carpet, Chennai, Tamil Nadu - 6000079 2. Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Mookambika Complex, 3rd Floor, Lady Desila Road, Mylapore, Chennai-600004, also at 123, Angappa Naicken Street, Chennai-600001 also at S.P. Complex, 2nd Floor, 26 Wallax Road, Sowcarpet, Chennai 3. Branch Manager, Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., College Road, Pathanamthitta. 4. Vijay Kumar, Proprietor, Surya Enterprises, Thaza Vettippram, Pathanamthitta. 5. Franchise Manager, -- RESPONDENTS Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Kiliyalathu Plaza, Near K.S.R.T.C. Bus Station, Kayamkulam, Alappuzha District (By Adv. Narayan. R. for R2) JUDGMENT SMT. SANTHAMMA THOMAS: MEMBER
This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the order under challenge is dated 22/12/2011 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pathanamthitta in CC No.125/11 whereby the complaint filed by the complainant/appellant has been dismissed.
Brief facts are Shri. Babu P.S. ("Complainant") had taken the loan amount of Rs.2,30,000/- from the 2nd Respondent through 1st Respondent on 05/06/2008 for purchasing a Tayota Qualis vehicle bearing registration No.KL-3F 511. The loan was repaid by the Complainant by means of monthly installment of Rs.14,540/- and entire loan amount was cleared by 05/06/2010. He demanded the NOC (Non Objection Certificate), four (4) self signed blank cheques, self signed blank Rs.50/- Non-Judicial stamp paper and other relevant documents from the respondents but the respondents did not comply with. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents, the complainant filed a complaint against them in the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pathananmthitta (in short "the District Forum") seeking direction against the respondents to issue NOC, return four (4) self signed blank cheques, self signed blank Rs.50/- Non-Judicial stamp paper and other relevant documents.
The respondents 2, 3, and 4 filed the written statement disputing the fact the complainant had remitted full loan amount and loan amount due now is Rs.5,98,339/- and hence the NOC and other documents considered as for termination of loan agreement can be issued only on remitting the said amount. The 2nd respondent also contested stating they do not have any office in Pathanamthitta and the complainant have not stated whom he have entrusted the money with and 2nd respondent are not in possession of complainant documents, hence dismiss the complaint. Parties produced the affidavits/documents in support of their respective versions.
The learned District Forum considered the matter and concluded that although complainant had produced receipts of payment (Exhibit A2) of an amount totaling Rs.3,19,880/-, he willfully have not disclosed the actual payment. Ld. Forum Below stated both parties failed to produce statement of account or the repayment schedule to prove their respective contentions. On perusing Ext.A2 evidence only they cannot come to a conclusion that complainant has cleared the entire dues. In the absence of cogent evidence showing that the complainant had cleared the entire dues and due to non-disclosure of real facts by the complainant we cannot find any deficiency on the part of the opposite parties, hence complaint dismissed.
Hence, this appeal We have considered the contentions carefully and are of the opinion that as the complainant had submitted receipts of making payment of his monthly installment with 1st respondent should be considered valid. The complainant submitted receipt copies recorded under Ext.A2, the respondents have not tried to contest the same by providing the Ld. Forum Below nor in this Commission, the initial burden of proving a Prima facie case is in favor complainant; when complainant gives such evidence as support to Prima facie case, the onus, shifts on to the respondents to adduce rebutting evidence to meet the case made out by the complainant. The respondents had a duty to provide or submit their statement of accounts or such other relevant documents while claiming that the complainant had a loan amount due now is Rs.5,98,339/-
The 2nd respondent was stating that they do not have any business office in Pathanamthitta and 1st respondent is just a franchise and act as agent, means 2nd respondent is totally responsible for the entire act conducted by the 1st respondent in accordance to general principles of the law of agency as contained in the Indian Contract Act. The 2nd respondent claim is that they have not received any payment from the complainant, however complainant was successful in submitting receipts and copies of cheque given to 1st respondent as his monthly installment payments, without proving default in the payment of installments in time, no such amount can be claimed by the Respondents. The Respondents are, therefore, concealing vital information and facts and revealing only what suits them. It appears that the entire loan amount stands paid by the complainant to the Respondents and that is why the detailed statements of accounts and the loan agreements have been withheld by them.
However, in the absence of any prayer by the complainant for any specific relief it is not possible to grant him any relief in terms of compensation or cost.
For the reason stated above, we hold accordingly and pass the following order The complainant is, therefore, entitled to the issuance of NOC from the respondents and hence it is directed that the respondents issue NOC, return four (4) self signed blank cheques, self signed blank Rs.50/- Non-Judicial stamp paper and other relevant documents.
Appeal allowed to the extent stated above. No cost. Copies of this order is to be furnished to the parties.
SANTHAMMA THOMAS -- MEMBER
K. CHANDRADAS NADAR -- JUDICIAL MEMBER
A. RADHA -- MEMBER
nb
[HON'ABLE MR. SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR] PRESIDING MEMBER
[ SMT.A.RADHA] MEMBER
[ SMT.SANTHAMMA THOMAS] MEMBER