BEFORE THE SOLE ARBITRATOR
SHRI V.K.THIRUNAVAKKARASU,
Arbitration case No. 462 of 2014
M/s. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd.,
Rep. by its Authorised signatory,
“Dare House” 1st Floor,
No.2, N.S.C.Bose Road, Parrys,
Chennai – 600 001. … Claimant
--Vs—
1. Mr. VELMURUGAN M
S/o. Malairajan,
No.208, 6th Street,
Periyar Nagar,
Thiruverkadu Chennai
Poonamalee
Tamilnadu-600077
2. Mr. Bramma R
S/o. Ranganathan,
No.2/1013, Sangamaithra Avenue,
Bharani,
Puthur,
Sriperumbudur,
Tamilnadu-600056 … Respondents
COUNTER STATEMENT FILED BY THE 1ST and 2nd
RESPONDENTS
The Respondents begs to state as follows:-
1. The 1st Respondent is Mr.M.VELMURUGAN , S/o. Malairajan,
Hindu, aged about years, residing at No.208, 6 th Street, Periyar Nagar,
Thiruverkadu Chennai, Poonamalee, Tamilnadu-600077
The 2nd respondent is Mr. R.Bramma, S/o. Ranganathan, Hindu, aged
about years, residing at No.2/1013, Sangamaithra Avenue, Bharani,
Puthur, Sriperumbudur, Tamilnadu-600056
The address for service of all notices and processes on the respondents
are that of their counsels M/s. V.V.KATHIRESAN & V. PREM KUMAR at
No. 124, Law Chambers, High Court Buildings, Chennai – 600 104.
2. The Respondents denies allegations, accusations, contentions and
statement set out in the claim statement and puts the claimant to strict proof
of each and every ones of the same except those that are specifically
admitted hereunder.
3. The Respondents state that the averments made in paragraphs 1 to 4
of the petition are all matter of records. The Respondents submit that they
had purchased the vehicle for Rs.9,00,000/-, and also attached some
additional fittings worth Rs.1,00,000/-. Of the above said sum, the
Respondent had availed loan of Rs.7,16,000/- from the Claimant.
4.The Respondents submit that as per the above said agreement, the 1 st
Respondent had paid 17 Equated Monthly Instalment of Rs.3,48,585/-, upto
April 2013. Due to financial crisis, the 1st respondent was not able to pay the
18th EMI in time. Hence, Claimants officials along with some agents and
rowdy elements, came to the residence of the 1 st respondent and threatened
him to pay the due immediately. When the 1 st Respondent requested to grant
time, they denied and forcibly taken the R.C.Book and the Key of the
Vehicle. They had neither collected the due amount, nor visited the 1 st
Respondents residence. Suddenly after 4 months visited, the Claimants
official along with rowdy elements visited the respondents house and
forcibly taken the vehicle.
5. With reference to para no.5, the respondents deny that they had
agreed to pay additional finance charges at 48% per annum. The
Respondents denies their signatures in the Loan Agreement-Vehicle Finance
and Schedule annexed with it. The Respondents submit that the terms and
conditions mentioned in the agreement filed as document no.2 by the
claimant is contradictory to the terms and conditions agreed upon while
entering into the Finance agreement. With reference to the Loan agreement,
the party to the agreement has to put their signatures in each and every page
of the agreement along with its necessary annexures. But the document no.2
does not carry signatures of the parties in all he pages.
6. The Respondents submit that the Claimant had fabricated the loan
agreement document along with its annexure, by altering the terms and
conditions in favour of the Claimant. The interest rate prescribed in the
fabricated schedule is violating the Reserve Bank of India Guidelines. The
Flat Rate of Interest is prescribed at 8.65% per annum, whereas, the Rate of
Additional Interest is prescribed at 48% per annum, which is against the RBI
guidelines and it infringes the basic Human rights of the Respondents.
7. The Respondents state that after surrender of vehicle, the claimant
has not sent any notice to the respondents regarding sale of vehicle and after
surrender, the claimant had sent a demand notice dated 05.02.2014 stating
that the claimant had sold the vehicle for Rs. 3,00,000/- and a balance of Rs.
3,77,195/- is still due out of entire loan amount.
8. The Respondents state that they were not served with any auction
notice of sale of vehicle or even the auction notice was published in any
regional news paper. The respondents state the claimant has not filed any
documentary evidence to prove that the vehicle has been sold for a sum of
Rs. 3,00,000/-.
9. The Respondents state that price of the vehicle at the time of
purchase (i.e. on 31.10.2011) was Rs.9,00,000/-. As on august 2013 i.e., the
date of surrender of subject vehicle, even after depreciation @ rate of 10%
per annum, it will definitely fetch Rs.7,35,000/-. But the claimant has stated
in its claim statement that the vehicle has been sold for Rs.3,00,000/- only,
which clearly proves that the claimant has given a false statement in order to
claim additional amount from the Respondents. The Respondents state that
when the vehicle was in a good marketable condition, it is the fault
committed by the claimant bank in selling the vehicle at a very lower price.
10. The Respondent states that the vehicle was sold for a very lower
amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- which is nearly 40% of value of the vehicle on the
date of surrender.
11. The Respondents state that the claimant has not made out a case
for granting any relief as prayed for.
It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Sole Arbitrator may be
graciously pleased to dismiss the above claim statement with the cost and
direct the Claimant to repay the excess amount received from the sale
proceeds to the Respondents thus render justice.
Dated at Chennai on this the 9th day of October, 2013.
Counsel for Respondents
