MUTHOOT LEASING AND FINANCE LTD Vs. K. SABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by impugned order dated 21.2.2013, passed by Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (short, "State Commission") Petitioner/Opposite Party No.2 has filed the present revision petition.

(2.) Brief facts are that Respondent/Complainant purchased an Ambassador car by executing an agreement availing vehicle loan of Rs.2,25,000/- on 10.12.2004 from the petitioner. It is stated that petitioner collected 10 post-dated signed cheques, signed blank papers and unfilled printed documents from the respondent and the sureties. It was assured by the petitioner that at the time of effecting payment of last installment of the loan amount, the documents along with no objection certificate would be returned to the respondent. The repayment of loan amount was a period of four years including interest and other charges and 47 installments @ Rs.5,500/- each and balance of Rs.3,500/- as 48th installment commencing from 19.1.2005 to 19.12.2008. After repayment of the entire amount, the petitioner has failed to return the documents. However, it demanded an amount of Rs.44,345/- for issuance of no objection certificate. The act of petitioner claiming exorbitant amount and denial of issuance of termination letter resulted in mental agony and financial loss to the respondent for which petitioner is liable to compensate and also for the deficiency in service. Respondent has claimed compensation amount of Rs.15,000/- and cost apart from the documents lying with the petitioner.

(3.) Petitioner in its version has stated that the forum lacks jurisdiction to try this case wherein a hire purchase agreement which is holding as a bailee and does not come under the definition of "consumer". Further, the dispute is covered under the arbitration clause and as such, complaint does not lie before the Consumer Forum. It is also stated that as per clause 3 of agreement, respondent had agreed to pay flat rate interest at 7.79% per annum. The allegation with regard to the 48th installment was to be paid only Rs.3,500/- is utter false and is bound by the terms of agreement. The repayment schedule along with the agreement stated that the 48th instalment was to be paid Rs.47,062/- No deficiency in service has been committed by the petitioner.