STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/32/A/93/2017 null ELIYAMMA THOMAS PRESENT ADDRESS - KANDATHIL HOUSE,RAJAKKANDAM.P.O .IDUKKI ,KERALA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus MANAGER SHRIRAM PRESENT ADDRESS - KANDATHIL BUILDING ,KATTAPPANA,IDUKKI ,KERALA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR , PRESIDENT SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN.K.R , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

NEMO FOR THE RESPONDENT:

NEMO DATED: INVALID DATETIME

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL No. 93/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 20.01.2025 (Against the Order in C.C. 421/2014 of DCDRC, Idukki)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER APPELLANT:

Eliyamma Thomas, Kandathil House, Rajakkandam P.O., Kochara, Chakkupallam, Idukki.

(By Adv. Rajmohan C.S.)

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

nd The Branch Manager, Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Kandathil Building, 2 Floor, Edasseri Junction, New Bus Stand Road, Kattappana, Idukki.

JUDGMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in C.C. No. 421/2014 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Idukki (for short “the District Commission”), who in this appeal challenges the order passed by the District Commission directing the opposite party to settle the loan account of the complainant’s vehicle by charging only 12% interest per annum for the defaulted instalments for the defaulted period. The District Commission also directed the opposite party to return all the documents collected as security for the loan to the complainant within 30 days of receipt of the copy of the order.

2. The complainant availed a loan of Rs. 5,50,000/- (Rupees Five lakh Fifty Thousand only) from the opposite party on 27.01.2013 for purchasing a goods carriage vehicle. The amount was agreed to be repaid in sixty equal monthly instalments of Rs. 17,000/- (Rupees Seventeen Thousand only) each. Due to financial crisis, the complainant could not remit the monthly instalments properly. As per the request of the opposite party, the complainant surrendered the vehicle along with all the documents for effecting the sale of the vehicle and appropriating the sale proceeds towards the loan amount. Since the opposite party calculated the amount charging exorbitant interest, the complainant requested the opposite party to submit the account details. The complainant also requested the opposite party to return the documents submitted by the complainant. Since the opposite party was not prepared to accede to the request of the complainant, the above complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

3. The opposite party filed version admitting the availing of the loan. The opposite party contended that the complainant had availed a loan of Rs. 5,61,847/- (Rupees Five Lakh Sixty One Thousand Eight Hundred and Forty Seven only). The interest for the said amount was Rs. 3,47,003/- (Rupees Three Lakh Forty Seven Thousand and Three only). The complainant paid only one instalment and thereafter the complainant did not turn up. An amount of Rs. 4,73,759/- (Rupees Four Lakh Seventy Three Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Nine only) was pending in the loan account. Since the complainant was a gross defaulter, the vehicle was surrendered and it was put in auction and sold for an amount of Rs. 3,30,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh Thirty Thousand only). The sale amount of the vehicle was accounted on the date of sale itself. The opposite party is entitled to claim overdue charges. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

4. Before the District Commission, PW1 was examined and Exhibits P1 to P6 were marked for the complainant. No oral evidence was adduced by the opposite party. However, Exhibit R1 was marked for the opposite party. After evaluating the evidence, the District Commission passed the order as mentioned above.

5. Heard b