M.THANIKACHALAM, J. - (1.) The opposite party is the appellant.
(2.) The complainant/respondent, had borrowed vehicle loan from the opposite party, for the purchase of three wheeler goods carrying auto, bearing Regn. No.TN 41 W7965, agreeing to repay the loan amount in 36 EMI, @ Rs.3750/-. The opposite party, who had retained the original registration certificate, failed to handover the same, when the complainant demanded, for the renewal of fitness certificate, thereby depriving the complainant to run the vehicle, preventing earning also. Infact, the opposite party represented that the original lost, if so incase of obtaining a duplicate, the value of the vehicle will be reduced to not less than Rs.30000/-. Thus the complainant was not only deprived of the income, by not allowing the complainant to renew the fitness in the absence of the original RC, but also diminished the value of the vehicle, in case of duplicate certificate, thereby caused negligence, and deficiency in service. Because of the conduct of the opposite party alone, not running the vehicle, the complainant was unable to pay the monthly instalments, and therefore the opposite party should be directed not to demand interest or penal interest, for the balance of premium payable. Thus, alleging deficiency, negligence, direction was sought for, for the return of the original Registration certificate, or duplicate Registration certificate, seeking further direction, not to claim interest and penal interest, for the unpaid EMI, further claiming a sum of Rs.50000/- as compensation, in addition claiming a sum of RS.30000/- for the diminished value of the vehicle, because of the duplicate RC, as well directing to deduct the said amount from the future instalments payable. Hence the complaint.
(3.) The opposite party/ appellant, admitting the grant of loan, questioning the jurisdiction of the consumer forum, based upon arbitration clause available, in the loan agreement, resisted the case interalia contending, that the complainant had paid or refunded only for 24 dues, leaving the balance that he being a chronic defaulter, in order to evade the further payment, or repossessing the vehicle, has filed this case falsely after the issuance of notice, demanding the balance, that the complainant had already collected the original RC book for RTO endorsement, and therefore there is no question of non-refund, that since the complaint is aimed to cheat the financier, when the financier has not committed any deficiency, it is liable to be dismissed, further denying the averments in the complaint.;