THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)

DATED THIS THE 18^th DAY OF JUNE 2021

PRESENT

SRI RAVI SHANKAR – JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI - MEMBER

APPEAL NO. 2153/2012

The Manager, Tata Motors Ltd.,

Tata Motors Finance Ltd.,

DGP House, 4^th Floor,

Old Prabhadevi Road,

Mumbai- 400 025.

…….Appellant/s.

(By Shri/Smt. Jai Patil, Adv.,)

                                          -Versus-

1.       Ashok S/o Sidappa Talli,

Age: Major, Occ:Agriculturist/Business,

R/o At & Post Kanamadi,

Tq. & Dist. Bijapur,

Karnataka, Pin – 586101.

2.       The Branch Manager, Private Eye,

          Investigators, I Floor, ‘B” Revankar Complex,

          Club Road, Hubli-29.

……….. Respondent/s

(R1 - By Shri/Smt Vijayakumar V.B. Adv.,)

(R2 – served absent).

:ORDERS:

BY SRI.RAVI SHANKAR  -  JUDICIAL MEMBER

         The appellant/Opposite Party preferred this appeal against the order dated:19/10/2012 passed by Bijapur District Consumer Commission in C.C.No.90/2012.

2.      The brief facts of the complaint are as under;-

         The complainant availed a loan for purchase of the commercial vehicle to the tune of Rs.6,00,000/- and after obtaining a loan, the complainant entered into hypothecation agreement and agreed to pay Rs.16,150/- in 45 equal monthly installments amounting to Rs.7,44,000/-.  Apart from that the complainant also entrusted this Opposite Party to pay the insurance premium of Rs.36,000/- and total installment is Rs.17,250/- for the first installment and Rs.16,150/- for remaining 45 installments from 19.03.2006 to 21.12.2009.  But the complainant had not repaid the entire loan amount, due to which this appellant had charged penal interest and overdue penalty.  In total the complainant had paid Rs.7,20,125/- as on 16/11/2012, but due to irregular payment and default, this appellant had charged overdue charges and  expenses and totally the complainant is liable to pay overdue amount of Rs.23,899.75 /-, accrued over due charged of Rs.41,393.82 and expenses of Rs.5,440/-, in total the complainant is liable to pay Rs.70,733.57/-.  In spite of that the complainant urged for no due certificate, but this appellant refuses to issue no due certification and demanded for balance amount, for which he approached the District Commission alleging deficiency in service against them and the District Commission after trial allowed the complaint by directing this Opposite Party to issue no due certificate along with Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and Rs.1,000/- for litigation expenses.  

3.       Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant/Opposite Party is in appeal on various grounds.

4.       The respondent not argued the matter in spite of sufficient opportunities provided.  We have heard the arguments of appellant. 

5.       It is an admitted fact that the complainant had availed a loan to the tune of Rs.6,00,000/- and agreed to pay the said loan in 46 installments at the rate of 16,150/-.  It is also an admitted fact that the complainant had paid Rs.7,20,125/- as on 16/11/2012, but the appellant/Opposite Party submits that they have charged Rs.23,899.75/- as overdue installments and Rs.41,393.82/- towards accrued overdue charges and Rs.5,440/- towards other expenses, in total Rs.70,733.57.  Of-course, the complainant is liable to pay overdue installments and accrued overdue charges/penalty as claimed by the appellant, because he is not regular in payment of the installments.  The statement of account produced before the District Commission clearly discloses that he is not regular in payment of the installments, for which they have charged overdue charges as and on he was in default of the payment of the installments, but the District Commission made an error in allowing the complaint without considering the statement of account which is admitted by the complainant himself.  As such the complainant is liable to pay overdue charges and other penalties as imposed by the Opposite Party/Bank as the complainant is a defaulter.  Hence, the appeal is liable to be allowed.  Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:-  

:ORDER:

The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.

The impugned order dated:19/10/2012 passed by the District Commission, Bijapur in C.C.No.90/2012 is hereby set-aside.  Consequently, the complaint is dismissed.

The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned District Commission to disburse the same to the appellant/Opposite Party No.1.

Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as Concerned District Commission.

Sd/-                                                                                                      Sd/-

Member.                                                               Judicial Member.

Tss