SREEJA FINANCE Vs. SAUMINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the order dated 20.1.2003 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Malappuram in O. P. No.246/2002 whereby the Forum has directed the 2nd opposite party to issue clearance certificate to the complainant in respect of a vehicle hypothecated by him with the 2nd opposite party, is being challenged in this appeal.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the complainant had availed a loan of Rs.60,000 (Rupees sixty thousand only) from the 2nd opposite party through the 1st opposite party in respect of an auto-rickshaw bearing Reg. No. KL-10j.4690 by entering into an agreement. As per the agreement the loan amount had to be repaid in 30 instalments @ Rs.2,000 before 22.7.2002 and according to the complainant she had repaid the full amount by 5.8.2002 and in spite of the full re-payment, the 2nd opposite party failed to issue the clearance certificate and as such the complaint before the Forum has filed for giving direction to issue the clearance certificate along with compensation and costs.

(3.) In the version filed by the 2nd opposite party, the main contention taken was that the complaint was not maintainable before the Forum. However, the 1st opposite party remained absent and was set ex parte. The 2nd opposite party's further contention was that as per the hire purchase agreement entered into by the complainant and the 2nd opposite party, the 2nd opposite party is the legal owner of the vehicle and the complainant was only allowed to ply the vehicle on monthly hire instalments. The complainant was liable to pay additional interest for the belated payments under Clauses 4 and 19 of the agreement as the complainant had not remitted the instalments on the due dates. It was also pleaded that the complainant was still a debtor to the 2nd opposite party and on payment of dues the 2nd opposite party was ready and willing to issue the clearance certificate.