Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/22/302

MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA FIN. SER. - Complainant(s)

Versus

ANURADHA SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

SH.MUKESH DUBEY

16 Jan 2023

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

                   PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL                         

                                                                         

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 174 OF 2022

(Arising out of order dated 28.01.2022 passed in C.C.No.07/2018 by the District Commission, Raisen)

 

ANURADHA SINGH,

D/O SHRI RAVINDRA SINGH,

R/O 9/12, POLICE LINE,

RAISEN (MP) -464 551                                                                                        …          APPELLANT.

 

           Versus              

  

MANAGER, MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA

FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED,

SAGAR ROAD, RAISEN (MP)-464 551                                                                 …         RESPONDENT.

 

 

FIRST APPEAL NO. 302 OF 2022

(Arising out of order dated 28.01.2022 passed in C.C.No.07/2018 by the District Commission, Raisen)

 

 

MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA FINANCIAL

SERVICES LIMITED,

GATEWAY BUILDING, APPOLLO BUNDER

MUMBAI (MS)

              AND

SAGAR ROAD, RAISEN (M.P.)

THROUGH AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE

ANURODH TIWARI                                                                                              …          APPELLANT.

 

           Versus              

  

ANURADHA SINGH,

D/O SHRI RAVINDRA SINGH,

R/O 9/12 NEW QUARTER POLICE LINE,

TEHSIL & DISTRICT-RAISEN (M.P.) -464 551                                                    …         RESPONDENT.

 

 

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR   :  PRESIDENT

           HON’BLE SHRI S. S. BANSAL                                     :  MEMBER

            HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK                         :  MEMBER

 

                     

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Shri Ravindra Singh, father of the complainant is present in person.

           Shri Sunil Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent.

                  

 

 

 

-2-

                                                  O R D E R

                                       (Passed on 16.01.2023)

                   The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr.(Mrs) Monika Malik, Member:

 

                         Aforesaid two appeals arise out of a common order and are taken up together.  For convenience facts of the case are taken from the First Appeal No.174/2022 unless otherwise stated. 

2.                Aforesaid appeals assail the order dated 28.01.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raisen (For short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.07/2018 whereby the District Commission has partly allowed the complaint. First Appeal No.174/2022 has been filed by the complainant for enhancement of compensation whereas First Appeal No.302/2022 has been filed by the opposite party for setting aside the impugned order.

 3.               Briefly put, facts of the case are that the complainant had availed vehicle loan for a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- from the opposite party.  It is submitted that rate of interest for repayment between the parties was agreed @ 6.5%. It is alleged by the complainant that the opposite party was charging interest @ 7.94% towards repayment of the aforesaid loan. Therefore, alleging deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission seeking relief.

 

-3-

4.                The opposite parties denied the allegations made by the complainant.  It is submitted that the complainant had deposited Rs.91,194/- as margin money, towards purchase of the subject vehicle valuing Rs.7,91,194/-. Rs.7,00,000/- was the financed amount which the complainant had obtained from the opposite party.  Rs.2,78,000/- were financial charges and thereby Rs.9,78,000/- was to be repaid by the complainant in 60 instalments of Rs.16,300/- each. A loan agreement dated 18.12.2015 was executed between both parties. It is submitted that the complainant had regularly deposited the instalments for 25 months but later defaulted in repayment of financed amount obtained by her.  Amount towards repayment of loan was charged from the complainant, as per agreement executed between the complainant and the opposite party.  There has been no deficiency in service on part of the opposite party.  It is therefore prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

5.                The District Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to pay Rs.25,000/- as penalty within a period of two months from the date of order. In addition Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony caused, with further sum of Rs.3,000/- towards costs is also awarded.

6.                Heard. Perused the record.

 

 

-4-

7.                Father of the complainant who appeared in person argued that the District Commission has committed error in ignoring the complainant’s pleadings whereby it was stated that the opposite party had obtained complainant’s signature on plain paper. She was not aware of any agreement executed between the parties. The District Commission has also not taken into account various letters written by her and her father, raising objection regarding imposing higher rate of interest on instalments. He also argued that the date of the agreement which is specified as 18.12.2015 is not to be believed, when insurance of the subject vehicle commenced on 15.12.2015.  In fact, the opposite party had obtained complainant’s signature on plain paper on 12.12.20215 and no such agreement was ever executed between the parties. He argued that the complainant has suffered immensely due to the unfair conduct of the opposite party. He therefore prayed that the compensation awarded by the District Commission deserves to be enhanced appropriately.

8.                Learned counsel for the opposite party argued that the complainant was the party to the loan agreement executed between the parties and had signed the loan agreement.  She was well aware of the terms and conditions of the loan which was financed to her. It was agreed

 

 

-5-

between the parties that the sum obtained, was to be repaid in 60 instalments of Rs.16,300/- each without any default. But, however, after initial few regular payments, the complainant defaulted in repayment of instalments. The plea raised by the complainant against the alleged overcharging of interest rate ought to have been raised by the complainant at the time of obtaining financial assistance, if she was not satisfied with the same and not after a period of more than two years.  No specific rate of interest was conveyed to the complainant. It was specifically mentioned in the loan agreement that late payment charges will be charged @ 3% per month.  The complainant is bound by the terms and conditions of the loan agreement executed between the parties and therefore the District Commission has erroneously granted relief, which is against the provisions of law.

9.                We have carefully examined the evidence available on record. All the letters written by the complainant and her father to the opposite party pointed towards objection against the rate of interest, being charged by the opposite party.  The complainant has not been able to produce any document substantiating her claim that the rate of interest in repayment of instalments of loan was agreed @ 6.5%.  Loan agreement dated 18.12.2015, available in the record is duly signed by the complainant. This

-6-

loan agreement clearly stipulates repayment of loan amount along with interest in periodical instalments on the fixed due dates as specified in Schedule 1 of the loan agreement. It is further specified that the borrower shall pay late payment charges @ 3% per month on the amount which are due, in the event of the amount not being paid in said due dates, and the same will be calculated from the date of default on the amount of default, till the date of payment.

10.              We find that the allegations of the complainant on the opposite party regarding obtaining her signature on plain paper on 12.12.2015, are unsubstantiated and are not acceptable.  The loan agreement dated 18.12.2015 is there on record and there is no specific denial from the complainant that this loan agreement does not contain her signatures. Therefore, in such circumstances, the complainant is bound by the terms and conditions of the loan agreement.

11.              In this set of circumstances, we find that when the District Commission had already observed and derived at a conclusion that the complainant was aware of the terms of finance, hence disputing the rate of interest later on is not acceptable, it has gone overboard in giving directions to the opposite party, vide the impugned order, which in our considered view deserve to be and are hereby set-aside.  

 

-7-

12.              As a result, the First Appeal no.174/2022 filed by the complainant is dismissed and the First Appeal no.302/2022 filed by the opposite party is allowed.

13.              Consequently, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.

14.              This order be placed in First Appeal No.174/2022 and a copy be placed in First Appeal No.302/2022.

 

(JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR) (S. S.BANSAL) (DR. MONIKA MALIK)                      

                  PRESIDENT                           MEMBER              MEMBER