N K ASHARAF Vs. MANAGER, SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO LTD AND ORS
LAWS(KERCDRC)-2010-12-8
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on December 27,2010

N K Asharaf Appellant
VERSUS
Manager, Shriram Transport Finance Co Ltd And Ors Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THE appellant was the complainant in CC. 216/2008 in the file of CDRF, Malappuram. The complaint stands dismissed.
(2.) IT is the case of the complainant who was represented by the Power of Attorney Holder that they are relatives and bus workers and that for earning their lively hood by means of self -employment they entered into an agreement with the opposite party financiers for the purchase of the stage carriage bus KL 10/P2196 which was surrendered by the previous owner. According to them it was agreed that the opposite parties would finance a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/ -. The complainant signed in blank agreement, blank cheque leaves, vouchers, receipts and forms. It was assured that on finalizing the paper works, as there was disputes with the previous owner, the vehicle would be handed over. The amount was to be repaid in 36 instalments. It was also told that the repayment will be start only after delivery of the bus. On 07 -08 -2007 the application for change of route permit into the name of the complainant was submitted and the same was allowed on 07 -11 -2007 on the no objection of the opposite party. The complainant submitted Forum G to the RTO to exempt from payment of tax, which was allowed. The complainant paid Rs. 75,000/ - on 28 -03 -2007, Rs. 25,000/ - on 10 -04 -2007, Rs. 10,000/ - on 25 -04 -2007, Rs.5,000/ - on 30 -06 -2007 and Rs. 25,000/ - on 31 -07 -2002. Even after payments the vehicle was not handed over. The complainant had to borrow amounts from friends and relatives to make the payment. He was put in a bad financial condition and his relatives took him to the Middle East to seek a job. Before leaving he entrusted the Power of Attorney Holder to take necessary steps. The Power of Attorney Holder approached the first opposite party for possession of the vehicle. The first opposite party did not hand over the possession. Altogether complainant has paid a sum of Rs. 2.5 lakhs. The complainant is ready to pay the remaining instalments. It is understood that the first opposite party has sold the vehicle for Rs. 6.5 lakhs to another person and he is taking steps to get fresh Registration Certificate. The complainant approached the Hon ble High Court and High Court directed the second opposite party RTO to hear the Power of Attorney Holder also before issuing fresh Registration Certificate. It is stated that the complainant has spent Rs. 30,000/ - for transfer of Registration Certificate and permit. He is liable to pay vehicle tax of Rs. 1,00,000/ -. He has sought for a direction to handover the stage carriage and to direct the opposite parties to collect remaining instalments of the loan and also to direct the second opposite party not to issue fresh RC in the name of the first opposite party.
(3.) IT is the case of the first opposite party/financier that a sum of Rs. 6.4 lakhs of finance was sanctioned to the complainant and the same is liable to be repaid with interest in 48 instalments, which would workout to Rs. 9,73,312/ -. It is contended that the complainant had operated the vehicle for a while and that as he could not further pay the instalments he surrendered the vehicle. The vehicle was not maintained properly. The vehicle was sold by the opposite party for a sum of Rs. 3.5 lakhs only. The purchaser has paid only a sum of Rs. 1.5 lakhs. The balance will be paid on providing fresh Registration Certificate to him. It is denied that the complainant has paid Rs. 2.5 lakhs. Evidence adduced consisted of a testimony of PW1, DW1, A1 to A8 and B1 and B2.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.