Vijay Patial son of Sh. Beli Ram resident of House No.60/4 Bhojpur, Sundernagar, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P.



…Complainant





V/S

1. Branch Manager, Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co- Ltd Gutkar Branch P.O. Gutkar Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P.

2. Regional Manager, Cholamandalam, Investment and Finance Co Ltd Regional Office SCO 45 Near Namdev Bhawan , Sector 21-C Chandigarh.

3. Cholamandalam Investment and finance Co Ltd Regd Office TIAM HOUSE Old No.28 New No.72 Rajaji Salai Chennai 600 001.



…..Opposite parties





ORDER.

This order shall dispose of a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986( hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) instituted by the complainant against the opposite parties .The case of the complainant is that he got financed a tempo trax No. HP-31-5527 from the opposite parties in the sum of Rs.2,60,000/- vide agreement No MNL -57314 and the amount was to be repaid in 36 equal instalments of Rs.9118/- with interest.


The complainant averred that due to unavoidable circumstances , the complainant could not repay the money as per the installments fixed by the opposite parties and resultantly the vehicle was seized by the opposite party No.1 and after settling the accounts and payment of due instalments , the vehicle in question was released in favour of the complainant and another agreement No MNL 161057 was executed in between the complainant and the opposite parties at Regional Office Chandigarh.


The complainant further averred that as per the second agreement an amount of Rs.1,58,081/- was re-financed and the said loan was to be repaid in 20 equal monthly instalments of Rs.9118/- . The complainant had alleged that all the amount had been paid and opposite parties were asked to issue no objection certificate of the vehicle in question, but the same was refused on the ground that some finance amount is payable by the complainant . The complainant further alleged that he had asked the opposite parties to check the accounts and the receipts and upon this it was found that some receipts have not been adjusted in the account and rather the opposite parties threatened to seize the vehicle in question.


The complainant alleged that the amount paid vide receipts dated 10-1-2004 Rs.56,000/-, 13-1-2004 Rs.4000/-, 12-2-2004 Rs.9120/- 26-3-2004 Rs.5000/- dated 3-4-2004 Rs.4120/- had not been adjusted in the statement of accounts and if amount of these instalments is included in that event he had paid excess amount . The charging of 3% additional finance charges from the complainant had also been objected. As per the complainant, the above act of the opposite parties is illegal and unwarranted and amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice .


On these facts , the complainant has sought a direction to the opposite parties to issue the No objection certificate of the vehicle No HP-31-5527, to refund the excess amount received by the opposite parties , to refund the amount taken as additional charged amount at the rate of 3% of loan and a sum of Rs.30,000/- has also been claimed as compensation on account of mental tension, and torture and deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice . Apart from this costs of litigation has also been claimed

2. The opposite parties have failed to contest the complaint and were proceeded against exparte.

3 We have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant and have carefully gone through the record of the case . The case of the complainant is that he got financed a vehicle from the opposite parties in the sum of Rs.2,60,000/- which amount was to be repaid in 36 equal monthly instalments of Rs.9118/- but the complainant could not repay the amount as per the instalments fixed by the opposite parties and resultantly the vehicle was seized by the opposite party No.1.


Further case of the complainant is that after settlement of the accounts and payment of due instalments , the vehicle was released in favour of the complainant and in consequence thereof second agreement was executed between the complainant and the opposite parties at Chandigarh and as per the second agreement an amount of Rs.1,58,081/- was refinanced and the said amount was to be repaid in 20 equal monthly instalments of Rs.9118/-.


As per the complainant, he had paid the entire financed amount and asked the opposite parties to issue him the No objection certificate but they are demanding more amount from the complainant. Therefore, in these circumstances , it was for the complainant to have established that he had paid the entire amount to the opposite parties as per second agreement and all instalments were deposited by him on their respective dates . However, neither the complainant has filed the copy of the original agreement nor second agreement vide which the vehicle was refinanced.


The complainant had also failed to file all the original receipts vide which the payment was made to the opposite parties from time to time by him. In our considered opinion , the complainant should have filed second agreement vide which the vehicle was refinanced , and all the receipts including statement of accounts prepared by some chartered account showing therein the amounts paid by the complainant to the opposite parties on different dates so that it could have been inferred by this Forum that the opposite parties had received the entire out standing amount as per the second agreement .


But the complaint has failed to file the same .Moreover , these are the matters which can be decided only by competent court of civil jurisdiction by reconciling the accounts. The forum constituted under the Act is not a proper forum for reconciling the accounts and for deciding the amount due to any of the parties which is to be done only by competent court of civil jurisdiction .


To take this view we are fortified by the order of Hon’ble Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission , Madras in the case titled R. Sethuraman vs The Manager , Indian Overseas Bank and another III(1993)CPJ-1614 wherein it was held that the Forum constituted under the Consumer Protection Act is not the proper forum for taking accounts and deciding the amount due to any of the parties and which is to be done only by the regular Civil Court of competent jurisdiction.



4 Similarly the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the case titled Bihar State Housing Board vs Chairman-cum-Managing Director and others I(1996)CPJ-228(NC) has held as under:-

“…………………………………………………….

…………………………………………………….

The dispute in respect of the amount deposited can be settled only by reconciliation of accounts as well as by proof of such deposits by producing counter foils or deposit slips or other evidence. It will also be necessary to go into the Reserve Bank of India’s instructions from time to time laying down the rate of interest payable on such deposits or whether any Bank could deviate from the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India. In our view, it is a fit case to leave the parties to their remedies by way of a civil suit or other remedies as the disputes relates to accounting between the parties.



5 In an another case titled Vishal Roadways vs Economic Traders ( Gujarat ) Ltd ( 1998)NCJ( NC)-539 had the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission had taken a similar view by holding that if the dispute between the parties relates to the settlement of the accounts and for balance due on the basis of the accounts , the same does not fall within the ambit of Section 2(1)( c) and (e) of the Act. The relevant extract of the aforesaid order is reproduced as under:-



As observed by the District Forum, the relation between the complainant and the opponent was of a customer and businessman. In the dealings, the complainant had paid more than the required amount to the opposite party and the complainant was entitled to recover the said amount from them. The allegations made in the complaint did not spell out a case of hiring of services and suffering from deficiency. Rather it disclosed a case relating to the settlement of accounts and for the balance due on the basis of accounts.


The complainant did not fall within the ambit of section 2(1)_(c) and (e) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. Civil suit was the proper remedy to recover the amount paid in excess. The District Forum and the State Commission had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint which was beyond the scope of Consumer Protection Act. We hold that the order of the District Forum as well as the State Commission suffer from legal infirmity and are unsustainable in law. In the result the revision petition is allowed, the orders passed by the State Commission and the District Forum are set aside resulting in dismissal of the complaint, However, we leave the parties to bear their own costs”





6 In the present case also, as discussed earlier , the dispute between the parties relates to the settlement of the accounts and for balance due on the basis of the accounts which obviously do not fall within the ambit of section 2(1)( c) and (e) of the Act. The complaint under the Consumer Protection Act is not a proper remedy for re- conciliation of the accounts and for deciding the amount due to any of the parties on the basis of the accounts . The allegations made in the complaint do not spell out a case of hiring of services and suffering from deficiency .

7 In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. However, the complainant is at liberty to exhaust his remedy before the competent court of jurisdiction in accordance with law and the dismissal of the present complaint shall not in any way affect his right in any manner as we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.