K.R. Udayabhanu, President—The appellants are the opposite parties/financiers in CC. 250/05 in the file of CDRF, Kannur. The Forum vide a majority judgment held that no further amount is due to the appellants from the complainant towards the loan amount of Rs. 85,800 availed by the complainant for the purchase of a Bajaj Diesel Autorickshaw on 7.2.2005.

2. It is the case of the complainant that he purchased the particular autorikshaw for a sum of Rs.12,000 including expenses for body work, etc. He availed a loan of Rs.85,000 from the opposite parties for the same. As per the agreement the EMI was Rs.3,356 for 24 months and Rs.3,219 for 12 months. He paid 11 monthly instalments including service charges. As on 14.3.2006 the vehicle had run 3,420 kms. On 14.3.2006 the financier forcibly seized the vehicle by engaging musclemen. Complainant had filed a petition before the Valapattanam Police Station. Thereafter the complainant left for Dubai for a job and returned on 18.7.2006 as he could not get a proper job. The complainant approached the opposite party and was told that the vehicle has been sold on 13.7.2006. Subsequently it has been intimated that the vehicle was sold for Rs.32,000. It is alleged that the vehicle has been seized illegally. He has claimed for the return of the autorikshaw and for compensation of Rs.200 per day from 14.3.2006 onwards as he had daily loss of Rs.200 per day.

3. According to the opposite parties the vehicle was surrendered by the complainant and issued a cheque for settlement of the amount and that the above cheque bounced and a case under Section 138, NI Act is pending. It is contended that as he got employment abroad ‘he surrendered the vehicle. The vehicle was auctioned on 19.7.2006 and the notice was issued to the complainant. According to the opposite parties they have sustained huge monitory loss.

4. Evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, DW1, Exs. A1 to A11 and B1 to B5.

5. The Forum has held that it appeared that the vehicle was sold for a meager amount of Rs. 32,000. The complainant has paid together 11 EMIs amounting to Rs.37,060 as on 7.12.2005. Evidently the vehicle was seized after one year and 5 months of purchase. The circumstances would indicate that it is unlikely that the vehicle was surrendered by the complainant. Had it been the case the complainant would have been present at the time of sale or else the complainant would have sold the vehicle with the consent of the opposite parties and settled the amounts due. The opposite parties have not produced any documents with respect to the sale or furnished any details as to the sale. So also the proceedings of auction were not produced. The case of the complainant that the vehicle had run only 3,420 kms. stands not discredited. As held by the Forum the statement that the vehicle was sold only for Rs.32,000 stands not established. The Forum has rightly held that the vehicle would have fetched a higher amount which the Forum has calculated at Rs.90,000.

6. It is the contention of the Counsel for the appellant/opposite parties that the amount calculated by the Forum as Rs.90,000 without any basis. In fact the same is the case with the version the opposite parties that the vehicle was sold for only Rs.32,000. The value of the vehicle mentioned in Ex. B1 finance agreement is Rs.1,01,045. The complainant has made a down payment of Rs.15,245. Hence even as per the admission of the opposite parties the complainant has remitted a sum of Rs.37,060 towards the instalments. Including the down payment the amount spend by the complainant would be Rs. 52,305. According to the complainant he spent another sum of Rs.20,000 for additional fittings body work, etc. Complainant has lost the same as well as the vehicle. It has also to be noted that the total amount due to be repaid works out to Rs.1,15,892 as per the repayment schedule. The repayment is to be over by 3 years i.e. 36 instalments. According to the opposite parties th