LAWS(NCD)-2017-11-136

MANAGING DIRECTOR, SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LTD & ANR ; BRANCH MANAGER, SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. MAYA W/O MANOJ

Decided On November 20, 2017
Managing Director, Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd And Anr ; Branch Manager, Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd Appellant
V/S
Maya W/O Manoj Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Delay condoned.

(2.) By this Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act") , Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited (for short "the Finance Company") and its Branch Manager, Opposite Parties in the Complaint, question the legality and correctness of the order dated 25.11.2016, passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (for short "the State Commission") in Appeal No.14 of 2016. By the impugned order, the State Commission has affirmed the order dated 30.10.2015, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Alappuzha (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint No.134 of 2013 and has thus, dismissed the Appeal preferred by the Petitioners herein.

(3.) In the first instance, while allowing the Complaint filed by the Respondent herein, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioners in demanding a sum of Rs. 3,14,510/- against the principal loan amount of Rs. 2,72,000/-, as a pre-condition for foreclosure of the loan account, the District Forum had directed the Petitioners to accept from the Complainant the balance amount of Rs. 93,767/- (Rs. 2,72,927/-minus Rs. 1,79,160/-) due from him along with interest @ 16% p.a. from 28.05.2015 and close the loan account, entering full satisfaction. At the cost of repetition, it may be noted at this stage itself that against the total amount of loan of Rs. 2,72,000/- raised by the Complainant from the Petitioners, for purchase of vehicle, admittedly he had remitted a sum of Rs. 1,87,150/-, yet the Finance Company was demanding an additional amount of Rs. 3,14,510/- for foreclosing the account. As noted above, the State Commission has affirmed the finding returned by the District Forum to the effect that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioners in demanding the afore-stated additional amount, after accounting for the amount already received, viz. Rs. 1,87,150/-, observing thus: