Tripura

West Tripura

CC/53/2016

Sri Srikanta Saha. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager, M/S. Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.R.K.Das, Mr.B.C.Biswas.

15 Nov 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

CASE   NO:   CC- 53 of 2016 

Sri Srikanta Saha,
S/O- Sri Ashutosh Saha,
Central Road, Khosbagan,
P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala,
West Tripura District.                ..…..…...Complainant.

           VERSUS

Branch Manager & Authorized Signatory,
M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd.,
Mathchowmuhani, Shibnagar College Road,
P.O. Agartala- 799004.                ..............Opposite party.

      __________PRESENT__________

 SRI A. PAL,
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SRI U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

C O U N S E L

    For the Complainant        : Sri Ranjit Kr. Das,
                          Sri Bhupal Ch. Biswas,
                          Sri Utpal Das,
                          Advocates.

For the O.P. No.2             : Sri Swarup Pandit,
                      Advocate.

        JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:  15.11.2016

 

 

J U D G M E N T

        This case was filed by one Srikanta Saha U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. He filed the case against the Branch Manager, Shriram Transport Finance company Ltd. Fact of the case in short is that complainant proposed for purchasing a tractor. Accordingly respondent company offered a tractor on higher purchase basis. Tractor was purchased on payment of Rs.4,19,247/-. Down payment was Rs.1 lakh and rest payment is to be made on 33 installments. Agreement was prepared and signed by party. Complainant paid Rs.1,27,000/- in installments. The tractor was not working. There was many mechanical problem. So installment could not paid. O.P. then demanded Rs.3,51,872/- imposing penal interest @ 36%. respondent company is entitled to get Rs.2,92,347/- as per terms and condition but they demanded Rs.3,51,872/- by imposing penal interest violating the terms and conditions. Petitioner was ready to pay the amount as per agreement. But O.P. demanded more and harassed the petitioner. Therefore petitioner claimed compensation Rs.6,29,247/-.  

2.        O.P. Shriram Transport company appeared, filed W.S denying the claim. It is stated that the petitioner made false complaint. Fresh agreement was made and as per agreement complainant agreed to repay the amount Rs.6,26,935/-. The tractor was purchased for commercial purpose and this claim before the Consumer Forum not maintainable.

3.        On the basis of assertion denial made by the parties following points cropped up for determination
        (i) Whether O.P. Finance company demanded excess amount as installment violating the agreement?
        (ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation as claimed?
        
4.        Petitioner produced the notice, letter given on different dates to the finance company. 
        
5.        Petitioner have submitted schedule of the payment, money receipt, notice, reply, registration certificate of tractor etc. Both the parties produced statement on affidavit.
         O.P. produced Statement of account, Screen report of the vehicle.
6.        On the basis of all these evidence on record we shall now determine the points.
    Findings and decision:
7.        Srikanta Saha petitioner in the cross examination stated that he had shop for selling materials. Other person hired his vehicle on payment. So he was doing business by the vehicle but question here is not about use of the vehicle but about loan taken by him from the finance company. He signed into the loan agreement and as per his statement loan amount paid by installments. Statement of repayment is submitted and it is found that the complainant paid Rs.13,297/- on 05.09.10 and thereafter on different dates. Rs.4,19,247/- was paid by Srikanta Saha. Rs.1 lakh down payment was also made. The policy documents are produced. The agreement was not produced by either parties. Only some notices were submitted. From the notices produced nothing found to support that condition was violated and there was provision for penal interest. Cheque for Rs.2,95,900/- was issued as per record of Rajesh Chakraborty, Advocate, Guwahati High Court. From this advocate's letter nothing can be ascertained clearly. We are of the view that imposing of interest @ 36% was arbitrary and should not be imposed. Such imposition is deficiency of service by Sreeram Finance company. We therefore direct the Sriram Transport Finance company to take the amount i.e., normal interest rate @12% not 36% as claimed. The vehicle is not in working condition. It is second hand vehicle and petitioner now could not earn from that vehicle. All these circumstances is to be taken into account. And therefore direction is to be given to the Sriram Transport Finance company to receive the amount calculating interest @ 12% as was agreed upon not the penal interest @ 36% as claimed. With this direction the case is disposed. Supply copy.
         
                         Announced.

SRI A. PAL
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA    SRI U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.