FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT

SHRI SWAPAN KUMAR MAHANTY, PRESIDENT

            The brief contentions of the complainants are that at the time of purchase of their Volkswagon Polo Car bearing registration No. WB12C3036, they obtained a loan of Rs. 6,57,264/- for the OP/financer which is payable in 60 equal monthly installments. Loan Agreement bearing No. CF8444969 dated 30.09.2012 was executed between the complainants and Financer. Complainants defaulted in making the EMIs in due time and several EMIs bounced throughout the payment schedule. OP/Financer collected cheque bounce charges and EMIs by issuing e-receipts through SMS. OP tried to accumulate more EMIs and cheque bounce charges despite request of waive cheque bounce charges. Mr. John Behra, Recovery Officer along with two goon recovery agent tried to repossess the vehicle at SaltLake City, Sector-V but failed to succeed. The act of the OP is tantamount to unfair trade practice. Hence, the complainants approached this commission by way of consumer complaint seeking compensation etc.

            The complaint is resisted by the OP/Financer. In its reply, the OP admitted sanction of loan of Rs. 6,57,264/- to the complainants for purchasing Volkswagon Polo Car on execution of Loan Agreement dated 30.09.2012. The tenure of EMIs is 60 months and amount of EMIs is Rs. 14,427/-. Complainants failed to pay EMIs on due date. In terms of Loan Agreement, complainants are bound to pay cheque dishonor charges and late payment charges. Complainants have defaulted 46 EMIs and the OP had collected defaulted EMIs through their agent. EMIs tenure enhanced  on accounting of adding cheque dishonored charges and late payment charges. Complainants did not pay two EMIs of Rs. 28,854/- and concealed the vehicle. Since no payment is made, the OP referred the matter to the Arbitrator who passed the award directing the complainants to pay Rs. 82,170/- along with interest  at the rate of 12  percent p.a. on and from  14.12.2017 till its realization and further hold that OP/Financer is the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No. WB-12C-3036. It is also contended that there is no deficiency and/or unfair trade on the part of the financer.

            Both parties have adduced evidence supported by affidavit. OP filed BNA. We have heard the complainant No. 2 in person as well as Ld. Advocate for the OP and also perused the material available on record.

            Considering the sequence of events and on perusal of the documents on record, it is clear that the complainants availed loan of Rs. 6,57,264/- from the OP/Financer for purchaser of a Volkswagon Polo Car on executing Loan Agreement bearing No. CF8444969 dated 30.09.2012. The tenure of EMIs is 60 months and amount of EMIs is Rs. 14,427/-. It is also true that the complainants failed to pay EMIs on due date. Complainants alleged that the OP illegally claim representation charges, overdue interest and cheque bouncing charges etc. Loan Agreement deals with cheque dishonor charges, late payment charges and also collection charges of EMIs through Agent. On perusal of the complaint petition, we find that complainants themselves admitted that they did not pay EMIs in due date and the Agent of the OP collected EMIs. Thus, the complainants are bound to pay cheque dishonor charges, late payment charges, and collection charges also in terms of the Loan Agreement. Complainants violated the contractual obligation in terms of the Loan Agreement. On perusing pleading of the parties, it reveals that two installments of Rs.28,854/- as on September,  2017 is still outstanding. If, we add cheque dishonor charges, late payment charges and collection charges then the amount increased to Rs. 82,170/-. It is true that the OP issued legal notice dated 24.09.2018 to the complainants directing them to pay the entire outstanding dues together with interest and cheque bouncing charges within  07 days of receipt of the notice. Such notice was unattended. Having no other alternative, OP appointed Sole Arbitrator in terms of Loan Agreement. Despite notices, complainants did not participate in the Arbitration Proceeding. Ultimately, the Arbitrator passed an Award a sum of Rs. 82,170/- along with interest  at the rate of 12  percent per annum payable by the complainants jointly or severally on and from  14.12.2017 till its realization with cost of Rs.  10,000/-. Photo copies of award transmitted to the complainants under Registered Post on  14.03.2018. complainants failed to produce any cogent proof that except EMIs they are not liable to pay interest, penal charges and collection charges to the OP. It is a settled law that the onus to prove deficiency in service and unfair practice lies largely on the complainants and that this onus can be discharged by leading cogent evidence. A mere averment in a complaint by no stretch of imagination be said to be evidence by which the case of the complainants can be said to be proved. It is the obligation of the complainants to provide hard evidence to prove the case of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service against the Financer. Moreover, the Sole Arbitrator passed an Award against the complainants in connection with Loan Agreement No. CF 8444969 dated 30.09.2012. Complainants failed to produce any document to establish that they prefer Miscellaneous Appeal before the Competent Court of law against the award passed by the Sole Arbitrator.

 In our view, the present consumer complaint completely failed to prove that there is any unfair trade and deficiency of service on the part of the OP/Financer. Moreover, claim of the OP/Financer is covered under the Loan Agreement.

            On the basis of foregoing discussion, we find no merit in the present consumer complaint and the consumer complaint is hereby dismissed on contest with no order as to cost.