THE KERALA STATE  CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL  COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD,  THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

APPEAL .  NO – 879/2015

ORDER DATED. 16/11/2017

(Appeal filed against the order in CC.No. 141/2013, CDRF, Wayanad)

PRESENT:-

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN  : PRESIDENT

SRI. V.V.JOSE      : MEMBER

APPELLANT:

          Magma  Fincorp Limited represented by their state

          Legal head Mr. Rakesh Dawny, 1^st floor,  Jain Towers,

          N.H. Byepass road, Vyttila, Ernakulam 682 019.

          (By Adv. Philip T. Varghese )                                                                                

V/S                                                  

RESPONDENTS:

1. Moosa, S/o Avulla,

652, Kanhayi House,

Panamaram, Cherukattoor village- 670 721.

(By Adv. R.Suja Madhav)

2. Anmol, S/o Sasidharan Nair,

Kandannottil House, Chenganoor P.O,

Pin. 689 121.     

                                      (2)

ORDER

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN  : PRESIDENT

        First opposite party in CC No.141/14  on   the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Wyanad has filed this appeal challenging the Order of the forum directing it to prepare a fresh chart of EMI @ Rs.15,000/- ( Rupees fifteen thousand ) for   balance amount due, as assessed by   Forum,  on   the loan transaction of    complainant hypothecating his  vehicle .  First opposite party  was also directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- ( Rupees five thousand  ) and cost of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand)  to complainant.

        Complainant’s case was that he had entered into a loan transaction with the first opposite party   to purchase a motor vehicle   and as security for the loan transaction  a hypothecation

                                                        (3)

agreement own the vehicle  was entered into by the parties.  He alleged that the transaction was entered with the assistance of an   

agent who was subsequently impleaded as additional 2^nd opposite party.  According to him, there was an agreement  to pay   every month  Rs. 15000/-  ( Rupees fifteen thousand ) by him  and Rs. 3500/- ( Rupees three thousand  and five hundred ) by his agent .     However, he was issued a chart showing that   monthly instalment payable was Rs.18,500/- for a period of 22 months and, thereafter,  for a period of 18 months    at the rate   Rs.3544/-. When a   demand was made for monthly instalment @  Rs.18,500/- from him   he protested .  He was then informed that he need  to pay only Rs.15,000/- and balance Rs.3500/- would  be collected from his agent, 2^nd opposite party.  One  payment was made for six  months, then,  he was assured that a fresh chart would be  issued.    However, he received a notice

                                                        (4)

threatening   seizure of vehicle,  that too after he had remitted a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- towards the loan transaction.  Alleging that there was threat of forcible seizure of the vehicle and also deficiency of service by first opposite party,  complaint was filed before the forum to restrain  opposite party  prove seizing  the  vehicle and also for issue of directions for settlement of accounts and   payment of compensation.

        After first opposite party entered appearance and filed version disputing the case