IN THE KODAGU DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MADIKERI

SRI. C.V. MARGOOR, PRESIDENT

O R D E R

1. This complaint has filed by Sri.K.K. Ponnappa, Ex-servicemen resident of Kaikeri Village, Virajpet Taluk, Kodagu District to direct the opponent party No.1 Arvind Motors, Madikeri and opposite party No.2 Tata Motors Finance Ltd, Thane West to issue NOC, Cheque leaves and pay litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.50,000/- towards mental truma and harassment.
2. It is the case of complainant that during the year 2015 by availing loan from opposite party no.2 has purchased Tata Supermint LGV vehicle.  He has requested the opposite parties for payment of loan at his local place but they did not concede his demand.  Even after one month from the date of availment of loan he did not receive any intimation as such he has approach the opposite party no.1 Madikeri where he  paid the first installment.  One month after the availment of loan on the information given by opposite party no.1 he started paying instalments at Syndicate Bank, Branch at Madikeri.  The complainant has requested the opposite parties to permit him to pay installments at HDFC Bank Branch Gonikoppa since the opposite parties have got opened his SB account at HDFC Bank, Branch at Madikeri at the time of sanction of loan.  The distance between complainant’s native place and Madikeri is foraway as such every month he was spending Rs.120/- for coming over to Madikeri to pay installments.  The complainant has requested the opposite party no.2 to accommodate him to pay installments nearby branch since he could not travel on account of old age 74 years.  Therefore, he was compelled to pay 24 installments at Syndicate Bank, Branch at Madikeri.
3. It is further case of complainant that when there was no response from Manager of opposite party no.2 he requested his son-in-law and daughter for payment of installments nearby his native place Bank then with their help he was sending EMIs through Canara Bank Gonikoppal Branch.  Even after discharge of entire loan amount the opposite party has failed to issue NOC.  Hence this complaint.
4. The opposite party no.1 appeared and filed written version admitting that they are the authorized dealer for Tata Commercial Vehicle.  The opposite party no.1 admitted that the complainant has purchased Tata Supermint vehicle from them by availing loan from Tata Finance.  There is an agreement between the complainant and Tata Finance as such the opposite party no.1 is no way concerned to the said transaction and relief claimed by the complainant.
5. The opposite party no.2 appeared through its learned counsel and filed written version admitting that the complainant had availed credit facility from them for purchase of vehicle through opposite party no.1.  It is the contention of opposite party no.2 that the complainant has purchased commercial vehicle for doing commercial activities as such he is not consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act.  This opposite party had sanctioned loan of Rs.4,31,000/- to the complainant for purchase of Tata Supermint Ace. The complainant had agreed to pay the said amount in 48 equated monthly installments starting from 15/02/2015 till 15/01/2019.  The complainant has not paid EMIs as per the designated date and still he is liable to pay a sum of Rs.4,093/- as on 25/11/2019.  Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of this opposite party as the complainant has committed breach of the terms and conditions of agreement dated 30/01/2015 as such he is not entitled for compensation.
6. The complainant filed his affidavit and got marked exhibits P1 to P4.  On behalf of opposite party no.2 one Panduranga Kini, Legal Manager, Tata Motors Finance Ltd. filed affidavit evidence and got marked Exhibits R1 to R3. 
7. We have heard the oral arguments of the complainant and opposite party no.2 in addition to written brief submitted by them and the points that would arise for determination are as under;

1. Whether the complainant proves that the act of opposite party no.2 not issuing NOC even after closing of entire loan amounts to deficiency in service?

2. Is complainant entitled to the reliefs sought for?

8. Our findings on the above points is as under;

• Point No.1:-In the affirmative.
• Point No.2:-Partly in the affirmative for     

the below;

R E A S O N S

9. Point No.1 and 2 :-The complainant has submitted that though there was no co-operation from the opposite parties for payment of schedule installments he has paid regularly by travelling more than 50 kilometers from his native place to Syndicate Bank, Branch at Madikeri.  The complainant has submitted that though he has paid EMIs regularly, the opposite party has imposed penalty and did not issue NOC even after discharging entire loan.  The opposite party no.2 Legal Manager has urged that the complainant is not consumer as he has purchased vehicle for commercial activities and he failed to remit the EMIs regularly and thereby became defaulter.
10. The complainant either in the complaint or affidavit evidence nowhere whispered that he purchased the Supermint vehicle from opposite party no.1 for doing commercial activities.  Admittedly the vehicle sold by opposite party no.1 is of commercial vehicle.  The loan sanctioned by the opposite party no.2 is meager amount of Rs.4,31,000/- since the vehicle purchased is a small goods vehicle.  In addition to that the complainant being Ex-serviceman aged more than 70 years on the date of availment of loan.  The opposite party has taken contention that the complainant has purchased vehicle for commercial purpose.  The complainant might have purchased the said vehicle for his livelihood since he retired from service long back.  The opposite party no.2 has not placed any materials to show that the complainant was carrying commercial business by using the purchased vehicle.  The opposite party no.2 has not produced any material to show that apart from the purchased vehicle, the complainant owned other vehicles and doing business.  The opposite party has not placed any evidence to believe that the complainant was using the vehicle for profit motive.  Thus the opposite party has failed to prove that the complainant is not a consumer.
11. The contention of opposite party is that the complainant has not paid installments on the designated date.  The complainant has produced Exhibit P1 loan terms and condition letter dated 23/01/2015 issued by opposite party no.2 which contained repayment schedule at clause F.  According to repayment schedule issued by opposite party no.2 the complainant was to pay loan amount in 48 monthly installments of Rs.12,550/- and each installment was due on 15^th of every month.  The first installment was commenced on 15/02/2015 and the last installment was due on 15/01/2019.  The complainant has produced Exhibit P2 the payment receipts and they are in 41 numbers.  The opposite party No.2 has not disputed payment of entire 48 EMIs.  The opposite party no.2 has produced Exhibit R3 statement of account and according to this the first installment was due on 15/02/2015 and same was paid by the complainant on 15/02/2015.  Even though payment was made on due date it is mentioned in Exhibit R3 statement at page no.26 of documents as there is six days delay and charged interest at Rs.74.27.  If we perused all 41 receipts produced by complainant he has paid EMIs on due date i.e. as per repayment schedule issued by complainant.  The complainant has paid eight EMIs after due date of installment as on 16/01/2017, 16/03/2017, 16/01/2018, 16/10/2018, 16/02/2016,  16/04/2016, 16/11/2016 and 18/12/2017.
12. On perusal of all these receipts the complainant has paid some installments prior to due date as on 9^th,10^th,12^th and13^th of that month.  The payment receipts show that there is no abnormal delay in payment of EMIs as per repayment schedule.  The complainant has paid EMI on the next day of installment due and only in one month there was three days delay.  The opposite party no.2 as per its own records has collected interest from the complainant a sum of Rs.1,71,400/- on the sanctioned loan amount of Rs.4,31,000/-by charging interest at the rate of 17.74%.  In addition to that the opposite party no.2 has charged documentation of Rs.3,000/- and stamp charges of Rs.931/-.  There is no abnormal delay in payment of EMIs by complainant and the statement of opposite party no.2 and receipts produced by complainant show that the complainant has paid EMIs regularly without gap as per repayment schedule.  The opposite party no.2 has maintained Exhibit R3 statement which is not in accordance with regular course of business.  The opposite party no.2 in Exhibit R3 has went on changing the repayment schedule date of installment by taking in to consideration the delay in making payment.  According to Exhibit P1 payment receipts hardly there are 10 days delay in making payment.  On the contrary in Exhibit R3 statement the opposite party has shown 778 days delay.  If there is one day delay in making payment of EMI as per repayment schedule the opposite party could have charged penal interest for one day on Rs.12,550/-.  According to Exhibit R3 for delay in making EMIs balance payable by complainant by way of interest charged a sum of Rs.2,160/-.  The opposite party has charged and recovered interest of Rs.1,71,400/-from the complainant.  The way of calculation made by opposite party no.2 is nothing but unfair trade practice to harass the poor old aged Ex-serviceman who has promptly paid the EMIs and discharged the entire loan as per repayment schedule.  Therefore, non issue of NOC and the cheque leaves after discharge of loan inspite of request made by the complainant vide Exhibit P3 registered post notice dated 24/04/2019 amounts to deficiency in service.  Due to act on the part of opposite party the complainant who is residing in a rustic village and hill lock area of Kodagu District was compelled to approach this Forum.  Therefore, the opposite party shall liable to pay compensation for mental trauma and tension along with litigation expenses.  For the above reasons, we proceed to pass the following;

O R D E R

1. The complaint filed by Sri. K.K. Ponnappa is partly allowed directing the opposite party no.2 to issue NOC for discharge of entire vehicle loan along with cheque leaves to the complainant within 30 days from the date of order.  In case the opposite party fails to comply with the order the opposite party No.2 shall pay penalty of Rs.100/- per day till compliance.
2. It is further ordered that the opposite party No.2 shall liable to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- for mental trauma and tension and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-to the complainant within 30 days from the date of order. Otherwise, it carries interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of filing complaint till compliance.
3. Complaint against opposite party no.1 is dismissed.
4. Furnish the copy of order to the complainant and opposite parties at free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this 14^thday of February, 2020)

                                                   (C.V. MARGOOR)

                                                        PRESIDENT 

                                                 (M.C. DEVAKUMAR)

                                                            MEMBER