Learned counsel for the appellants is present.
2. Notice against the respondent is made sufficient. None appears for the respondent.
3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the complainant has filed the case before the learned District forum alleging deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. The main claim of the complainant is that he has incurred loan from the appellants to purchase a Mahindra & Mahindra Van and accordingly loan was sanctioned. The grievance of the complainant is that he has met accident for which he has defaulted in making payment of instalments.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the complainant’s prayer before the learned District Forum is only to increase the number of instalments although the aim of the Consumer Protection Act is not to entertain such type of dispute. Mr Pattnaik, learned counsel for the appellants drew our attention to Para – 3 of the impugned order where the learned District Forum has argued the case for the complainant and brought a new theory about interest accrued on the loan. According to him, the impugned order should be set aside as it is not an order based on the evidence.
6. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellants and perused the materials available on record including the impugned order.
7. The extract of impugned order in Para - 3 and 4 is as follows:-
“xxx xxx xxx
3. Heard both the parties at length. Perused the materials found on the record. It is clear that the complainant has taken the loan from the oppose parties and executed an agreement bearing No.3105162 on 31.3.2014 of Rs.4,82,584/- (including interest) which has to be repaid within 45 months, with 1st installment of Rs.10,904/- and rest all installments at Rs.10,720/-. It also appears from the statement of account dt. 23.7.15, relied on by the opposite parties that the complainant is a defaulter. At the same time the complainant has submitted that due to a road accident he spent a huge amount of money for which he defaulted in payment of the installments. During argument, the learned advocate of the complainant has submitted increase the number of installments, so that it will be easy for the complainant to repay the loan amount. As per his submission, the complainant sincerely wants to repay back the loan amount and that it will be easier for him to repay the amount by increase of number of installments from 45 to 60. The learned advocate for the opposite parties objected to the same. Since the complainant has only prayed to increase the number of installments from 45 to 60, we do not find any reason for objection which has been raised by the learned advocate for the opposite parties. The opposite parties have sanctioned the loan in favour of the complainant with the purpose of collecting interest from him. The main purpose of the financial institutions is to grant loan and earn profit by collecting interest. If the number of installments would be raised from 45 to 60, then the opposite parties will get more interest and thereby earn more profits. Therefore, we do not find any reason for objection which has been raised by the opposite parties. However, it may need to executive fresh agreement and reschedule the installments by calculating interest and other charges if any.
Hence it is ordered.
4. The dispute is allowed on contest against the opposite parties. The opposite party No.2 is directed to increase the number of installments from 45 to 60 within 30 days of receipt of this order. The opposite party No.2 is further directed to calculate the total amount which has to be repaid by the complainant in 60 installments including interest and other charges if any and execute further agreement and other documents in this regard if required by him. At the same time the complainant is directed to co-operate with the opposite party No.2 for execution of further agreement and other documents if any as well as he shall not default in payment of installments and in case of default in payment of three consecutive installments by the complainant, the opposite parties are at liberty to seize the vehicle.”
8. The aforesaid order does not disclose any deficiency of service on the part of the appellants rather the District Forum has traversed its jurisdiction by directing the appellants to increase the instalments to 60 as the complainant was ill and became defaulter in payment of the loan. It should be remembered that whenever a judicial order is passed, it should have reasoned and in accordance with law. When loan has been incurred by the complainant and admittedly he became a defaulter, the consequence under the law is to follow. The learned District Forum has no jurisdiction to ask the financer to increase instalments but to examine if the appellants have committed any deficiency of service. When there is no any finding of deficiency of service or unfair trade practice necessary order would be to stop/rectify the defect but not to pass such order as stated above.
9. Be that as it may, we are of the view that the learned District Forum has committed error in law by passing the order to increase the instalments from 45 to 60 for collecting more interest. Moreover, we are of the view that the impugned order does not stand to the scrutiny of the provisions of law and as such is liable to be set aside and we do so.
10. The appeal is allowed. No cost.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
Free copy of this order be supplied to both the parties.
