Order No. 24 dt. 22/09/2017
Fact of the case according to the complainant in brief is that the complainant wanted to purchase a taxi and approached the Tata Motors Finance, 41 Kanak Building, P.S. Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-700071 (o.p.) for financial assistance by hire purchase agreement. Accordingly o.p. sanctioned a loan for financing the car, indigo CLX from Lexus Motors, Kolkata under contract no.5000406186 dated 12.06.2009. Complainant had to pay 47 monthly installment @ Rs.10,752/- and the amount would have to be paid between 12.06.2009 to 11.05.2013. The complainant claimed that he paid the all the installments including overdue interest of Rs.29,190/-. According to the terms and conditions of the contract complainant handed over 22 nos. of post dated cheques bearing no.971554 to 971575 drawn on SBI and those were handed over under receipt no.ZL164466 and the cheques were meant for payment upto November,2012. Even after payment of Rs.29,190/- o.p. again demanded Rs.6,698/- as overdue interest and o.p. did not want to give “No Objection Certificate” in respect of the carhire-purchased by the complainant under registration no.WB-04D 5514. Complainant pointed out that o.p. had erroneously incorporated a wrong registrationnumber in their official record as WB-06-B9413. By correction of the registration record complainant was entitled to get the registration no. against which the whole loan amount had been fully paid. Rather o.p. demanded an extra amount of Rs.6,698/- as overdue interest. Being aggrieved with such stance of the o.p. complainant sent a letter through his advocate by registered post but it was returned back as ‘not claimed’. In the complaint petition complainant mentioned that with a view to enhance his business,complainant willing to purchase another car by selling the car at his hand. Having no other alternatives complainant preferred a complaint against the o.ps seeking direction to compensate the complainant with Rs.5,00,000/- for unnecessary harassment, mental agony . Complainant also demanded cost without specifing the amount.
O.p. contested the case by filing w/v and denied all material allegations of the complaint. Ld. Lawyer for the o.p. has argued that the instant complaint is false, frivolous, baseless and is not maintainable. The present dispute arises out of a loan of Rs3,73,000/-cum-hypothecation agreement no.5000406186 dated 12.06.2009 which includes an arbitration clause on the strength of which an order of arbitration had already been passed on 13.07.2012 against which complainant lodged this case 1.25 year after ie,07.10.3013 The said loan amount was to be repaid along with Rs.1,32,340/- as finance charges and the sum total would be repaid from 11.07.2009 in 47 monthly installments @ Rs.10,752/- except the remainder installment. Again, according to the contract any dispute arising out of the said agreement would be referred to the arbitrator appointed by the Financier. Op stated that complainant paid some installments beyond the due dates. Hence, the complainant became liable to pay delay payment charges. The o.p. gave several reminders to the complainant to repay his loan. As such the o.p on giving the ultimate opportunity to pay loan by issuing a Notice dated 25.04.2012 to respond, terminated the loan agreement and called upon the complainant to clear his dues. The said notice was duly served upon the complainant. In spite of receipt of the notice the complainant did not turn up. Again, op denied and disputed that unethical acts or unfair trade practice, as alleged were not , at all done by the op in any way. Ld lawyer of the opargued that the complainant had run his business with the present car and he intended to enhance his business by purchasing new car, which clearly signifies that the purpose of purchase of the vehicle is wholly commercial. Therefore, complainant is not entitled to get the opportunity of the provisionsu/s 2 (1) (d) of the C.P.Act-1986. Thus, the Ld Forum would be pleased to dismiss the complaint case.
Ld. Lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant paid all the installments including overdue interest of Rs.29,190/-. After payment of the said amount by the complainant, o.p claimed Rs.6698/-further as overdue interest on 18.04.2013.The complainant submitted that it is completely illegal as well as unethical on the part of the o.p. that after several request they did not issue no objection certificate for the car which the complainant purchased through hire purchase agreement with the op-finance company. On the other hand due to their latches, at present, the route permit for running the car had failed.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:
- Whether there was deficiency in service/ UTP on the part of the o.ps.
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
Decision with reasons
All points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetitions of facts.
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties and materials on record and evidence in particular. From their submission it is an admitted fact that the op sanctioned a loan in favour of the complainant for financing a car by hire purchase agreement no.5000406186 dated 12.06.2009. Complainant paid the monthly installment @ Rs.10,752/- due to be paid between 12.06.2009 to 11.05.2013 including overdue interest of Rs.29,190/-.Even after payment of Rs.29,190/- o.p. again demanded Rs.6,698/- as overdue interest against which complainant preferred petition at this forum. Complainant had to pay 47 monthly installment @ Rs.10,752/- between 12.06.2009 to 11.05.2013.According to the terms and conditions of the contract complainant handed over 22 nos. of post dated cheques bearing no.971554 to 971575 drawn on SBI meant for payment upto November,2012. With those cheques payments up to May, 2012 were made.But the fate of the remaining six cheques meant for payment for the next six months ie for June 2012 to November 2012 were not cleared enough from available records against which op stated story of misplacement and demanded reissue of fresh cheques. According to the monthly payment details issued by the op for the month of April2013 an overdue interest of Rs6698/- was payable on18.04.3013. There was another month (May 2013) for which borrower would have to pay the monthly instalment as well as overdue interest.
It is also an admitted fact that after issuing notice & reminders to the complainant for his defaults in payments of loan amount / other incidental charges op had referred the loan case of the complainant to their Arbitrator for reconciliation and the arbitrator passed award against the complainant. It is also an admitted that the loan case had been referred to arbitrator in the year 2012 through arbitration case no LOT 19/APR6622 of 2012 dated 13 July 2012 and the Arbitrator passed ex-parte award dated 13.07.2012 against the complainant directing payment of Rs185002/- along with interest.
From records it is an admitted fact that according to the loan payment details, all the installments were not paid on due dates and complainant were to pay overdue interest of Rs.6,698.62 as on 18.04.2013 and to pay Rs.17,446.62 as on 11.05.2013,due date of last payment installment. By raising voice against the overdue interest of Rs6698.62 for the month of April,2013 and finding no reply according to his choice, complainant took shelter of this Forum without making any payment for the last month also ie, for the month of May,2013. Again, complainant himself stated that he obtained the hire-purchase loan for business purpose without referring any declaration that such source of earning was only for his livelihood and the op termed it a business for commercial purpose.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances stated above we hold that there was no deficiency in service/UTP committed by the o.ps for which the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
Hence, it is ordered
that the CC no. 605 of 2013 is dismissed on contest without cost.
Certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
