Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/847/2014

Parmdeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager Tata Motors Finance Limited. - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

10 Jun 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	847  of 2014
Date  of  Institution	:	19.12.2014
Date   of   Decision	:	10.6.2016

 

 

 

 

 

Parmdeep Singh s/o Apar Singh r/o H. No. 72, Sector 38, Chandigarh Second Address 383 Tribune Colony Gobin Vihar Kansal near High Court.

 

….Complainant

Vs.

 

1. The Manager Tata Motors Finance Ltd. SCO 139/140 Sector 9, Chandigarh.
2. The Manager TATA Motors 182/84 Industrial Area Phase 1 Chandigarh.
3. The Manager ICICI Lombard Motor Insurance SCO 26/27, Sector 8, Chandigarh.

 

…… Opposite Parties 

 

BEFORE: 

 

DR. MANJIT SINGH                                 PRESIDENT

SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA          MEMBER

 

 

 

For Complainant	:	None
For OP No.1 &3	:	Sh. Sandeep Suri, Adv.
For OP No.2	:	Exparte

 

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

 

                The facts, in brief, are that the complainant lured by an advertisement of speed motors regarding 0% finance on all vehicles purchased TATA IRIS vehicle by paying Rs.6000/- as first installment. The complainant purchased the said vehicle as a non-commercial vehicle and also paid Rs.3715/- plus taxes yearly premium on non-commercial vehicle to speed motors itself.   It has been pleaded that the said vehicle was to be financed as non-commercial vehicle by TATA  Finance Ltd. i.e. Opposite Party No.1. The sale letter given by the Speed motors was for non-commercial vehicle. Even the said vehicle was registered as non commercial vehicle for 15 years in the category of car. It is alleged that the complainant shocked to read the statement sent by Opposite Party No.1 wherein the interest for non commercial vehicle was calculated at commercial rate and more over insurance of the vehicle was financed for 10 more years (28000) which the complainant never opted for. The monthly installment was calculated at the rate of Rs.7072/- per month, which included 10 year finance of premium of insurance.  When the complainant went to office of Opposite Party No.1 with installment of Rs.6000/- they refused to accept the same.  Thereafter the complainant sent reminder and visited the office of Opposite Party No.1 a number of time but it did not do anything. Hence this complaint has been filed   alleging deficiency on the part of the OPs.

2. Notice of the complaint was sent to Parties, seeking their version of the case
3. The Opposite Party  No.1 in its written statement while admitting the factual matrix of the case stated that the loan was granted on the basis of written loan cum-hypothecation cum guarantee agreement duly signed and executed between the complainant and the answering Opposite Party. It has been averred that the rate of interest was specifically mentioned in the loan agreement schedule which has been duly signed and executed by the complainant. It has further been averred that the rate of facility to be granted is the sole discretion of the financer. In cases even the facility which is granted to a person availing a loan for a non-commercial purchase of vehicle may be more than that for person wishes to purchase a commercial vehicle and the same cannot be put into a straitjacket formula as to what rate of interest  shall be charged. In case the complainant was not satisfied with the loan facility or the interest being charged by the bank, the complainant should not have availed the same and should have forthwith cancelled the loan facility before paying the full amount. However, the complainant has chosen to continue to avail the facility and now after a period of 2 years has raised the present complaint. It has been denied that the vehicle in question was to be financed as non-commercial vehicle.  Even otherwise the fact of the vehicle being a commercial or non-commercial vehicle does not govern the rate of interest but is dependent upon several other factors.  It has been denied that the monthly installment was Rs.6000/-, which was actually Rs.7,072/- as has been mentioned in the loan agreement which was to be paid in 47 installments. The remaining allegations were denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4.           Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite  Party No.2 seeking their version of the case. However, since nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite party No.2 despite service, therefore, it was proceeded against ex-parte on 24.03.2015.

5.          Opposite  Party No.3 in its reply stated that  no relief has been claimed against the answering Opposite Party in the complaint. It has been asserted that the answering Opposite Party has no role in financing the vehicle in question it only issued policy of insurance on the basis of the proposal which was made by the complainant. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No3 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

6.             The complainant has filed a rejoinder, wherein he has reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of Opposite  Party No.1.
7.             Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.
8.             We have heard the complainant in person and learned counsel for OPs No.1&3 and have perused the record.
9.             The main contention of the complainant is that he got his non-commercial vehicle financed from Opposite Party No.1 but it calculated  interest of a non-commercial vehicle on commercial rate. However, we do not find any weight in this contention of the complainant. As per the Opposite Party No.1 the rate of interest was duly mentioned in the loan agreement duly signed and executed by the complainant.   A meticulous examination of loan agreement dated 8.12.2012 duly signed by both parties and placed on record at page 55 by the Opposite Party No1 apparently reveals at column 3 thereof that the vehicle was to be used for commercial purpose and further at column 4 it has been clearly mentioned that the loan amount was to the tune of Rs.2,21,000/- and the rate of interest thereon was @17%  p.a., which was to be paid in 47 installments of Rs.7072/- as is evident from column 6.  Since the agreement was duly signed by the complainant hence it can easily be assumed that he was agreed to the terms and conditions thereof.  Further contention of the complainant to the effect that the installment amount of the loan was Rs.6000/- also proves to be wrong as it is visibly  clear from the loan agreement  at column 8 that the said amount of Rs.6000/- was a non-refundable processing charges and in actual the EMI was Rs.7072/- which is evident from column 6 and the complainant was aware of the said fact. It is an undisputed proposition of law that ordinarily the parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the contract voluntarily agreed by them. Hence, it is held that the complainant is bound by the terms and condition of the loan agreement duly signed by him, according to which  loan was for the vehicle to be used as commercial vehicle and the complainant while signing the agreement was fully aware of the rate of interest calculated on the loan amount. Hence there is no merit in the complaint.
10.             For the reasons recorded above, we are of the view that the complaint is liable to be dismissed being devoid of merit. Accordingly the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
11.           The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

 

Announced                                                                                        sd/-

10.6.2016                                                            DR. MANJIT SINGH

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER