ORAL ORDER
Per – Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. C. Chavan, President
This appeal filed by Appellant/original Opponent is directed against an order dated 30/05/2012 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Solapur partly allowing Consumer Complaint No.216 of 2011 and directing the Appellant/Opponent to received from the Respondent/Complainant a sum of Rs.141/- and remove the charge in the RTO record on a truck bearing registration No.MH-43-E-7450.
[2] Facts, which are material for deciding this appeal, are as under:-
Appellant/Finance Company had financed purchase of a truck bearing registration No.MH-43-E-7450 by the Respondent/Complainant by providing loan of Rs.3,90,000/- in the year 2008. The Respondent/Complainant claimed to have repaid an amount of Rs.3,89,859/- only. According the Respondent, the Appellant’s representative used to demand repayment of loan and used to threaten that the Appellant would repossess the vehicle. Respondent, therefore, filed said consumer complaint.
[3] Appellant contested the complaint by filing its written version inter-alia contending that as on 21/03/2011, the Respondent had not paid an amount of Rs.72,441/-. Respondent had also taken a personal loan. Further, a sum of Rs.1,31,041/- was also recoverable from the Respondent and, therefore, there was no question of removing the charge on the hypothecated vehicle.
[4] After considering rival contentions, the learned President and the Members of the District Forum indulged in simple arithmetical calculations by deducting a sum of Rs.3,89,859/-, which the Respondent claimed to have repaid from the amount of loan of Rs.3,90,000/- and ordered the Appellant to receive from the Respondent the balance amount of Rs.141/- and remove the charge on the vehicle. Aggrieved thereby, the Appellant is before us.
[5] We have heard Adv. Rajesh Kanojia on behalf of the Appellant and the Respondent in person alongwith his counsel Adv. Ashutosh Madhukar Marathe. With the help of parties present before us, we have also carefully gone through the material placed on record.
[6] Respondent has not shown and had not even claimed before the District Forum that he had repaid any amount in excess of Rs.3,89,859/-. Appellant had advanced to the Respondent an amount of Rs.3,90,000/- by way of loan. Loan amount was to carry interest @ 16.14% p.a., as per the agreement. It was to be repaid in 48 Equated Monthly Installments (EMI) of Rs.14,651/-each, viz. in all a total sum of Rs.7,03,240/- had to be repaid. The District Forum seems to have totally disregarded the fact that the Appellant/Finance Company was entitled to charge interest on the amount advanced to the Respondent and passed a shocking order directing the Appellant to received from the Respondent only an amount of Rs.141/- and remove the charge. Appellant would obviously be entitled to recover interest as well on the amount advanced and, therefore, the charge could have been removed only after the Respondent showed that he had repaid the entire amount of Rs.7,03,240/-. Consumer Complaint was filed on 07/05/2011 and, therefore, by that date 35 installments of Rs.14,651/- viz. Rs.5,12,785/- should have been paid. However, the Respondent/Complainant paid an amount of Rs.3,89,859/- only. Thus, the impugned order passed the District Forum is thoroughly unjustified and, therefore, deserves to be modified. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:-
ORDER
Appeal is partly allowed.
Impugned order dated 30th September, 2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Solapur in Consumer Complaint No.216 of 2011 is hereby modified and same shall be read as under:-
“Complaint is partly allowed.
Respondent/Complainant – Mr. Madyappa Yamnur Sutar shall pay to the Appellant/Opponent – Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Rs.7,03,240/- (amount agreed to be repaid) minus Rs.3,89,859/- (amount actually paid) = Rs.3,13,381/- with a period of thirty days from the date of this order (since the order is passed in presence of the parties) and on payment of this amount, within fifteen days thereafter, the Appellant shall take steps to have the charge on the hypothecated vehicle removed from the record of RTO.
Parties shall bear their own costs.”
Pronounced and dictated on 25th September, 2014
