JUDGMENT (COMMON)

Sri. Ajith Kumar D., Judicial Member—The appellants in Appeal No.281/2021 are the opposite parties and the appellant in Appeal No.94/2022 is the complainant on the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Alappuzha (District Commission for short) in C.C.No.86/2020. As per the order dated 07.07.2021 the District Commission had directed the opposite parties to return the Mahindra Bolero car bearing Reg. No. KL 31 B 6247 in a road-worthy condition to the complainant after collecting the balance dues of Rs.11,643/. The complainant has filed the appeal claiming compensation from the opposite parties. The opposite parties too challenged the order that there was no deficiency in service on their part and hence sought for setting aside the order of the District Commission.

2. The facts contained in the complaint in brief are as follows: The complainant had availed a car loan from the 1st opposite party which fell in arrears. The 1st opposite party had initiated revenue recovery proceedings and the complainant remitted Rs. 51,970/- as monthly instalments through the Revenue Department from 14.10.2014 onwards. While effecting the repayment the 1st opposite party had initiated proceedings under SARFAESI Act and repossessed the car from the residence of the complainant. The car was taken in to custody with police aid after breaking open its window and hooking it on a crane. Repossession of the vehicle was made while there was prompt repayment of instalments. On 13.08.2019 a settlement was made between the complainant and the 1st opposite party for a total amount of Rs. 2,90,520/-. On the date of settlement Rs. 20,000/- was remitted. On 03.12.2019 Rs. 63,000/- and Rs. 14,000/- were withdrawn by the 2nd opposite party from the pension account of the complainant and transferred to the 1st opposite party’s account towards the car loan. The above transfer was done without the consent or knowledge of the complainant. On 21.12.2019 the complainant had further remitted an amount of Rs. 1,30,000/- as per the direction of the Chief Manager. But the complainant came to know that though a total amount of Rs. 51,970/- was remitted through revenue department, only Rs. 20,000/- was credited to the car loan account. Rs. 1,30,000/- paid by the complainant on 21.12.2019 and Rs. 77,000/- withdrawn from the pension account of the complainant were transferred to the account of different individuals. On 24.12.2019 the complainant obtained a statement of accounts for the period from 10.05.2010 to 21.12.2019 and he realized that Rs. 19,907/- paid by him on various dates was not credited to the car loan account and hence he preferred a complaint before the Banking Ombudsman, Thiruvananthapuram. The debit slips submitted by the opposite parties were not those signed or written by the complainant. The Ombudsman, without taking evidence closed the complaint. The opposite parties have no right to deduct pension amount of a retired soldier without his consent. In view of the settlement between the parties on 13.08.2019 the total arrears in the car loan were fixed as Rs.2,90,520/-.

3. Thereafter Rs. 2,27,000/- was realized from the pension account of the complainant and Rs. 31,970/- was remitted by way of R.R. proceedings. A further amount of Rs. 19,907/- was paid by him on various dates. Even then the car still remains in the yard of the 1st opposite party. Opposite parties are not ready to hand over the vehicle. Hence the complaint.

4. The opposite parties filed version that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complainant had availed a car loan to the limit of Rs. 5,60,000/- on 20.05.2010 and purchased a Mahindra Bolero car. The repayment of the loan amount was fixed in 84 equal monthly instalments of Rs. 8,948/- each. The complainant had signed and executed the agreement for car loan on 20.05.2010. Thereafter the loan account in the name of the complainant became irregular and hence it was classified as Non-P