Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/354/2010

Oriex Auto and Business Soulation Ltd - Complainant(s)

Versus

Gurudev Singh s/o Neeka Singh - Opp.Party(s)

Puneet Sharma

06 Jul 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

APPEAL NO: 332/2010

 

Gurudev Singh s/o Nikka Singh r/o D-23 Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur.

Vs.

District Transport Officer, Jhalana Dungari, Jaipur & ors.

 

APPEAL NO: 354/2010

 

Oarix Auto & Business Solution Ltd. 302, Ganpati Plaza, M I Road, Jaipur through Br.Manager

Vs.

Gurudev Singh s/o Nikka Singh r/o D-23 Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur. & ors.

 

 

Date of Order 6.7.2015

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mr.Vinay Kumar Chawla-Presiding Member

Mr. Liyakat Ali -Member

 

2

 

Mr. D.M.Mathur counsel for the complainant Gurudev Singh

Mr.Puneet Sharma counsel for respondent Oarix Auto & Business Solution Ltd.

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION

 

Both these appeals arise from the judgment of learned

DCF Jaipur Camp Jaipur dated 4.2.2010.

 

Brief facts giving rise to this complaint are that the complainant had got financed his vehicle from opposite party no.2 for Rs. 8,50,000/-. This loan was to be re-paid in 45 monthly instalments of Rs.22,900/-. The complainant paid regular instalments for 19 months. Thereafter he committed default in payment of monthly instalments. His vehicle also met with an accident. The opposite party no.2 had taken this vehicle in their possession as the complainant was not making the payment of monthly instalments. This truck had been auctioned by the opposite party no.2 for Rs. 6,85,000/-. After adjusting all the charges the OP no.2 remitted a sum of Rs.84,250/- as excess receipt by way of sale proceeds of the truck. However, the complainant refused to accept this amount and claimed that a sum of Rs. 2,70,100/- was due to him. He filed a consumer

3

 

complaint before the learned DCF who allowed the complaint directing that OP no.2 cannot charge interest from the date when the truck had been taken into possession. The learned DCF also ordered that OP no.2 was not entitled to charge vehicle possession fee of Rs.10,000/- and pre-payment charges of Rs. 9265/-. In this manner the complaint was allowed.

 

The complainant filed Appeal No. 332/2010 praying that an amount of Rs. 2,70,100/- is due to him and the learned DCF has not granted any relief with regard to the forcefully possession of the truck. Appeal No. 354/2010 has been filed by the OP no.2 challanging the judgment of the learned DCF on the ground that the DCF has no right to disallow the penal interest, vehicle possession charges and pre-payment charges.

 

The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that as per the statement of account Rs.2,70,100/- is due to the complainant and the learned DCF has not allowed this amount. He further argued that truck had been taken into possession by OP no.2 without giving any notice to the complainant. The complainant was regularly paying the monthly instalments. Only on acount of accident of the vehicle there was default in paying some instalments.

4

 

The learned counsel for OP no.2 has argued that the DCF has no right to disallow the amount of penal interest and pre-payment charges. He has submitted that as per the agreement executed between the parties, in case of default, penal interest is chargeable and complainant is liable to pay the interest.

 

We have heard both the counsels and have perused the record. The loan of Rs. 8,50,000/- was taken by the complainant is not disputed. The complainant had re-paid a sum of Rs.4,35,100/- by way of 19 monthly instalments is also not disputed. The truck was auctioned for Rs. 6,85,000/- is also not disputed. The OP no.2 debited the penal interest from 4.2.06 to 17.4.06. The truck was taken into possession by OP no.2 on 4.2.06 and was auctioned on 17.4.06.

 

We find no error in conclusion of the learned DCF that OP no.2 is not entitled to penal interest from the date the truck was taken into possession by them. The learned DCF has rightly disallowed this interest. Similarly the pre-payment charges of Rs. 9265/- was also disallowed. We feel that it is not a case of pre-payment as the complainant committed default and truck was taken into possession and auctioned. The complainant

 

5

 

cannot be saddled with any pre-payment charges. The learned DCF also disallowed a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as vehicle possession charges. We find no facts on record to support these charges. The OP no.2 has not placed on record on what account these charges were debited. Thus, the learned DCF has rightly disallowed this amount. We cannot accept the argument of the learned counsel for OP no.2 that the DCF has no right to reduce the penal interest from Rs. 1,43,106/- to Rs. 1 lac only. On consideration of this argument we find that the learned DCF has disallowed penal interest from 4.2.06 on which date the vehicle had been taken into possession till it was auctioned on 17.4.06. Thus, the learned DCF rounded of the interest on the basis of rough estimate to Rs. 1 lac.

 

As regards the argument regarding forcefully taking possession of the truck, we find no substance in this argument. The complainant had committed default in payment and OP no.2 by virtue of agreement executed between both the parties were entitled to take possession of the truck. If the complainant had any intention to clear the over dues, he could have paid the amount even after the vehicle was taken into possession by the OP no.2.

 

6

 

Thus, we find no force in both the appeals and both appeals are accordingly dismissed.

 

 

(Liyakat Ali) (Vinay Kumar Chawl)_

Member Presiding Members

 

nm