| ORDER | BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR. Consumer Complaint No. 576 of 2014 Date of Institution: 07-11-2014 Date of Decision: 19-08-2015. Shri Rakesh Kumar son of Shri Jagdish Chander, resident of H.No.42, Nawin Abadi, Now Main Bazar, Ajit Nagar, Verka, District Amritsar. Complainant Versus Tata Motors Finance Limited, through its Manager/ Authorized Officer/ Person Incharge, having its office at 2nd Floor, Ebony Mall, Mall Road, Amritsar. Opposite Party Complaint under section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Present: For the Complainant: Sh. Rajesh Bhatia, Advocate. For the Opposite Party: Sh.Anil Sharma, Advocate. Quorum: Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member Order dictated by: Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President. - Present complaint has been filed by Sh.Rakesh Kumar under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he purchased Tata Ace (Tempo) bearing registration No.PB-02-BL-9680 from M/s.Narain Automobiles on 30.09.2010 for a sum of Rs.2,95,349/-. Complainant alleges that for the purchase of the aforesaid vehicle, he obtained loan of Rs.2,65,000/- in the month of September, October, 2010 against loan account No. 50000608475 from the Opposite Party and the said loan was to be repaid in 47 monthly installments of Rs.8038/- to be commenced from 11.11.2010. The complainant has already paid 44 installments to the Opposite Party against proper receipts. It is pertinent to mention here that the charges for the registration of the vehicle and insurance were paid by the complainant himself. At the time of awarding the said loan facility, the Opposite Party had taken 23 blank signed cheques from the complainant and it was agreed by the Opposite Party that they shall inform the complainant before presenting the cheque in their account, but they had been presenting the said cheques in their account without informing the complainant and thereafter they had been pressuring the complainant to make the payments of the cheque forcibly. It is also pertinent to mention here that Opposite Party had been charging certain illegal amount in the loan account of the complainant, which were never agreed to be paid by the complainant. In the month of September-October, 2012 the agents of the Opposite Party illegally detained the vehicle of the complainant on road, when he was going to dispatch some consignment and the complainant was compelled to pay Rs.8000/- to the Opposite Party on the spot to release the vehicle in question, but no receipt of the said amount has been issued by the Opposite Party till date. The complainant had been paying the installments of the said loan to the Opposite Party in time and he has already paid 44 installments to the Opposite Party and now as per the record of the complainant, there remains only Rs.24,114/- (3 installments of the loan) due towards him to be paid to the Opposite Party and in this regard few days back the complainant approached the Opposite Party and requested that he is ready to pay the remaining amount of Rs.24,114/- in one stroke and also requested to issue NOC of loan alongwith cancellation of hypothecation over the RC after receiving the balance loan amount of Rs.24,114/-, but the Opposite Party did not pay any heed to the genuine request of the complainant and has raised a demand of Rs.40,000/- illegally and threatened that if, the complainant did not pay the said amount in that case, they will take the possession of the vehicle in question forcibly. Two days back, the complainant again approached the Opposite Party and requested to issue NOC and cancellation of hypothecation after receiving Rs.24,114/-, but this time, the Opposite Party raised an illegal demand of Rs.49,000/- to issue NOC and to cancel their hypothecation over the RC of the vehicle in question. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to issue NOC/ No Due Certificate qua to the loan account of the complainant after receiving the remaining amount of Rs.24,114/- and to cancel the hypothecation entry from the RC of the vehicle in question; to adjust Rs.8,000/- forcibly taken from the complainant by their agents and to issue receipt regarding the said payment of Rs.8,000/- and the Opposite Party be also restrained from taking the possession of the vehicle in question from the custody of the complainant. Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
- On notice, Opposite Party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the complainant is defaulter of Opposite Party and never deposited loan installments within a requisite time period as undertaken by him at the time of advancement of loan. As per the terms and conditions of the said loan agreement No.5000608475 entered into by he complainant for purchasing of TATA ACE, the complainant was to repay the total contract value of Rs.3,77,786/- (includes Rs.2,65,000/- finance amount+ Rs.1,12,786/- finance charges) through 47 monthly loan installments of Rs.8038/- each to be paid on 11th day of every month. However, said complainant was not prompt in repayment of his loan installments on time and most of his installments have been paid after stipulated due date and after much follow up from the Opposite Party thus making him liable for repaying the delayed payment charges/ overdue interest and other charges as stipulated in the said loan agreement. Hence, upto 21.11.2014 an amount of Rs.40,540/- as current overdue amount stands against the complainant, beside this amount of Rs.26,725/- towards ODC stands due towards him and he is legally bound to pay all the outstanding due, as such on ground of concealment, present complaint is liable to be dismissed. Opposite Party further alleged that the present dispute involves intricate questions pertaining to the Rendition of loan account as the complainant is disputing the levy of the interest and other charges which in fact are levied as per the terms of the loan cum hypothecation agreement duly signed by the complainant. The proceedings of the Consumer Forum are ‘summary’ in nature and as such issues are outside the purview of this Forum. The only remedy available to the complainant is to approach the arbitrator as per the terms of the loan cum hypothecation agreement duly signed by him. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
- Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C20 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
- Opposite Party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Jasbir Singh attorney Ex.OP1 alongwith documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP3 and copy of power of attorney Ex.OP3/A and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party.
- We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
- From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that the complainant purchased Tata ACE (Tempo) bearing registration No.PB-02-BL-9680 on 30.09.2010 for a sum of Rs.2,95,349/- vide invoice Ex.C8 by obtaining loan of Rs.2,65,000/- against loan account No. 50000608475 from the Opposite Party. Said loan alongwith interest was to be repaid in 47 monthly installments of Rs.8038/- to be commenced from 11.11.2010. The complainant submitted that he has already paid 44 installments to the Opposite Party against proper receipts. Opposite Party has also taken 23 blank signed cheques from the complainant with the assurance that they would inform the complainant before presenting the same for encashment. Complainant further submitted that in the month of September- October, 2012 the agents of the Opposite Party illegally detained the vehicle of the complainant and released the same after receiving a sum of Rs.8,000/- without giving any receipt. There remain only 3 installments of the loan i.e. Rs.24,414/- due towards the complainant to be paid to the Opposite Party. The complainant approached the Opposite Party to receive the amount in lump sum and issue NOC alongwith cancellation of hypothecation cover of the vehicle, but the Opposite Party did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant, rather they demanded Rs.40,000/- illegally from the complainant. Now the Opposite Party has raised a demand of Rs.59,000/- to issue NOC and to cancel their hypothecation cover. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
- Whereas the case of the Opposite Party is that the complainant has concealed the material facts from this Fora. The complainant is defaulter of Opposite Party and never deposited loan installments within a requisite time period. As per the terms and conditions of the said loan agreement No.5000608475 entered into by the complainant with the Opposite Party for purchasing of TATA ACE, the complainant was to repay the total contract value of Rs.3,77,786/- which includes Rs.2,65,000/- financed amount+ Rs.1,12,786/- finance charges through 47 monthly loan installments of Rs.8038/- each to be paid on 11th day of every month. The complainant did not paid the loan amount in time. Most of his installments were paid after stipulated due date and after much follow up from the Opposite Party and as such, the complainant is laible to pay the delayed payment charges/ overdue interest and other charges as stipulated in the said loan agreement. Hence, upto 21.11.2014 an amount of Rs.40,540/- as current overdue amount stands against the complainant, beside this amount of Rs.26,725/- towards ODC stands due towards the complainant and he is legally bound to pay all the outstanding due. The complainant in order to wriggle out from his legal liability to pay the outstanding loan amount, has filed the present complaint with malafide intention. The parties are bound to repay the loan amount as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. Ld.counsel for the Opposite Party submitted that the Opposite Party has been charging the loan amount outstanding due from the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. Opposite Party further denied that the agent of the Opposite Party had ever received a sum of Rs.8000/- from the complainant in September- October, 2012 as alleged by the complainant. The complainant has also failed to produce on record any evidence in this regard in the form of any receipt etc. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party.
- From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant in order to purchase Tata ACE (Tempo) bearing registration No.PB-02-BL-9680 took loan of Rs.2,65,000/- from the Opposite Party in September- October 2010 and in this regard, parties executed loan agreement No. 50000608475. Said loan amount alongwith interest was payable in 47 monthly installments of Rs.8038/- each. The installment is payable on 11th day of every month. As per statement of account of the complainant Ex.OP1/2, the complainant did not pay the installments in time. Most of the cheques issued by the complainant for the payment of loan installments were also dishonoured/ bounced. As such, the complainant is liable to pay the delayed payment charges/ overdue interest and other charges as stipulated in the said loan agreement. As per the statement of account of the complainant dated 21.11.2014 Ex.OP3, a sum of Rs.40,540/- as current overdue amount stands against the complainant i.e. amount of interest on overdue installments and other charges. Apart from this, a sum of Rs.26,725/- as ODC stands due towards the complainant. Opposite Party has been charging this amount as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement No. 50000608475 duly executed by the complainant as well as Opposite Party. All this fully proves that the Opposite Party has been charging/ recovering the overdue loan amount and interest payable by the complainant to the Opposite Party as per terms and conditions of the agreement executed between the parties. The complainant could not produce any evidence that the Opposite Party has been charging this amount against the terms and conditions of the agreement.
- The complainant has also failed to produce any evidence to prove that the agents of the Opposite Party in the month of September-October, 2012 detained the vehicle of the complainant and released the same after getting Rs.8000/- without issuing any receipt. The complainant has also failed to state clearly the date of September-October, 2012 when such incident happened nor the complainant could produce any cogent evidence in the form of affidavit of any person i.e affidavit of driver, cleaner/ assistant, of such tempo from whom the agents of the Opposite Party have allegedly took Rs.8000/-. So, from the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant has failed to prove his averments and also failed to point out any deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party qua the complainant.
- Resultantly the complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
Dated: 19-08-2015. (Bhupinder Singh) President hrg (Anoop Sharma) (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) Member Member | |
