Decided on June 02,2010

Malabar Finance Corporation Appellant
Devassia K P, S/O Poulose And Ors Respondents


- (1.)APPELLANT is the 1st opposite party/Finance Company in CC.89/08 in the file of CDRF, Wayanad. The appellants are under orders to issue clearance certificate with respect to the amount financed. The Forum has directed that in case the 1st opposite party fails to do so the 3rd opposite party, RTO, Wayanad is to cancel the hire purchase endorsement in the RC book. The opposite parties 1 and 2 ie, the Finance Company and the intermediary is directed to pay Rs.2000/ - as compensation and Rs.1000/ - as cost.
(2.)THE dispute is with respect to the finance advanced for the purchase of a Mahindra Jeep. As per the hire purchase agreement entered into allegedly through the 2nd opposite party the 1st opposite party has advanced a sum of Rs.1,05,000/ -. As per the agreement the hire charges are calculated at Rs.50,200/ -. As per the agreement the above amount ie Rs.1,55,200/ - is to be repaid in 32 instalments starting from 8/2/2004. 20 instalments are to be repaid at the rate of Rs.5000/ - per month and the rest 12 instalments at the rate of Rs.4,600/ - per month. The last instalment falls on 8/9/2006. For the default of any instalments the lender is to pay an additional finance charges at the rate of 36% per annum from the due date. The case of the complainant is that he had remitted the entire instalments but when approached for the certificate to cancel the endorsement in the RC they insisted for a sum of Rs.35,600/ - in addition. After negotiation it was agreed that the matter will be settled on payment of Rs.25,000/ -. The above payment was made on 5/5/2007. Thereafter he received a notice dated 6/10/2007 again intimating that the complainant owes a sum of Rs.15,200/ -.
(3.)THE evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, OPW1 and Exts.A1 to A6 and B1 to B4.
As noted by the Forum it is seen that the OPW1, the power of attorney holder of the opposite party has admitted that the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.1,40,000/ - before 8/9/2006. As per Ext.A2 receipt dated:5/5/2007 the complainant has paid another sum of Rs.25,000/ -. Hence the case set up by the complainant appeared genuine. On the other hand, it is contended by the counsel for the appellants that Ext.A2 receipt was not issued by the appellant and that Ext.A5 series of receipts are also not issued by the appellants. But RW1 during cross -examination has admitted that the receipts were issued by the appellant. The appellant has further contended that the 2nd opposite party has nothing to do with the appellant.

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