Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/387/2012

T.Umamaheswari - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chandu Kumath Financier - Opp.Party(s)

P.Kumanan

14 Jan 2015

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CHENNAI

BEFORE :   HON’BLE THIRU JUSTICE R.REGUPATHI                   PRESIDENT  

                                                           THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI                                              JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                                           TMT.P.BAKIYAVATHI                                                   MEMBER                                                                                  

F.A.NO.387/2012

(Against the order in CC.No.292/2008, dated 08.08.2011 on the file of DCDRF, Coimbatore)

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015

T.Umamaheswari,

W/o.C.N.Thirumoorthy,

D.No.1/28, New No.149,

Vidya Nagar,                                                                                                     M/s.P.Kumanan

Jothipuram Post,                                                                                              Counsel for Appellant / Complainant

P.N.Palayam, Coimbatore – 47.

-vs-

Chandu Kumath Financier,

No.3, New Extension Main Road,                                                                   M/s.M.Aravind Kumar

Mettupalayam,                                                                                                 Counsel for Respondent /Opp.party

Coimbatore 641 301.

          The appellant is the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying certain relief.  The District Forum dismissed the complaint.  Against the said order, the appellant / complainant filed this appeal praying for to setaside the order of the District Forum in CC.No.292/2008, dated 08.08.2011.     

          This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 18.12.2014, upon hearing the arguments on either side, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order.

A.K.ANNAMALAI,  JUDICIAL MEMBER

          The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant.

2.       The appellant / complainant purchased share auto on the basis of hire purchase agreement with the opposite party and after paying certain installments out of total 20 installments balance amount of Rs.56,300/- was paid in lumpsum on 17.7.2007 and thereby as there was no due payable when the complainant demanded for issue of NOC and return of documents since the opposite party demanded further dues , a consumer complaint came to be filed by the complainant seeking reliefs for issuance of NOC and for return of documents and for compensation with costs.

3.       The opposite party denying the allegations contended that the complainant being the defaulter in payments of EMI as per the terms and conditions of the agreement since there was dues payable with defaulter interest, the NOC and other documents could not be issued and thereby no negligence or deficiency on their part.

4.       On the basis of both sides materials and after an enquiry the District Forum accepting the contentions of the opposite party dismissed the complaint.

5.       Aggrieved by the impugned order the complainant has come forward with this appeal contending that the District Forum erroneously dismissed the complaint without taking consideration of the substantial payment of Rs.56,300/- and alleging a paltry sum of Rs.50/- as payable which was not mentioned in the Pass Book under Ex.A2 and failure to consider the same, dismissing the complaint erroneously when the entire amount was settled in full quit on 17.7.2007 and thereby appeal is to be allowed.

6.       We have heard both sides arguments and carefully perused the materials including the order passed by the District Forum in this regard.  It is not in dispute that the complainant availed hire purchase loan on the basis of agreement under Ex.A1 and at the time of filing complaint she alleged that she paid a lump sum of Rs.56,300/- as final settlement as on 17.7.2007 and inspite of that NOC was not issued.  The District Forum observed that the complainant is not in the habit of regular payment of dues as per the entries in Ex.A2 Pass Book and lump sum payment of Rs.56,300/- itself would go to prove the same when the alleged monthly installments only for Rs.9425/- per month whereas the Respondent / opposite party contended that as per the terms and conditions of the agreement in case of default additional interest have to be paid along with the default payment for which the complainant herself accepting the same given a letter under Ex.B5 in which stating that when she had demanded for NOC after payment of lump sum she came to know that the installments were not paid on due dates and paid belatedly and thereby she would pay the delayed payment, travel expenses etc there was a due of Rs.12,944/- + Rs.3000/- and another Rs.50/- in all for Rs.15,944/- she would  pay the same within one month from the date of letter dated 17.8.2007 itself and signed the letter on a Revenue stamped paper and after giving this letter, legal notice was issued by the complainant under Ex.A3 dated 13.8.2008 i.e., before the accepted date of due balance as on 17.8.2008 for which a reply notice was given under Ex.B6 dated 16.8.2008 even  though the letter Ex.B5  dated 17.7.2007 mentioning the year wrongly as 2007 and not 2008 when the complainant alleged that the letter was concocted one which was not mentioned in the complaint, averments and also not denied when the reply was sent under Ex.B6 and in those circumstances in view of the terms and conditions of the hypothecation agreement under Ex.A1 and since the complainant being chronic defaulter in paying the EMI and certain dues payable due to belated payment with default interest was proved by the opposite party side and thereby she cannot claim any relief under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and thereby we are of the view that the District Forum by considering all the relevant materials came to proper conclusion and passed well considered order in which we find no error or infirmity and thereby this appeal deserves to be dismissed as devoid of merits and accordingly

          In the result, the appeal is dismissed by confirming the order of the District Forum, Coimbatore in CC.No.292/2008, dated 08.08.2011.

          No order as to costs in the appeal.

 

P.BAKIYAVATHI                        A.K.ANNAMALAI                        R.REGUPATHI

    MEMBER                                (J)MEMBER                               PRESIDENT

 

INDEX; YES/NO

VL/D;/PJM/CONSUMER