Punjab

Nawanshahr

CC/89/2014

Kulwant Rai - Complainant(s)

Versus

Lally Autos - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

11 Mar 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR.

Consumer Complaint No.   :         89 of 26.08.2014

Date of Decision                 :       11.03.2015

Kulwant Rai son of Shonki Ram, resident of Village Malupota, Tehsil Banga, District S.B.S. Nagar

….Complainant

Versus

1.       Lally Autos, Banga Road, Nawanshahr through its proprietor Shri Lally (dealer in Mahindra Tractors).

2.       Mahindra Finance through its Franchisee C/o Lally Autos, Banga Road, Nawanshahr through Shri Lally.

…Opposite Parties

 

Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 

QUORUM:

MRS.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

S.KARNAIL SINGH, MEMBER

MRS.SUDHA SHARMA, MEMBER

 

counsel for the parties:

For complainant            :         Complainant in person.

For OP No.1                            :         Ex parte

For OP No.2                            :         Ex parte

 

ORDER

PER S. KARNAIL SINGH MEMBER

1.       Kulwant Rai - complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act only) against the opposite party No.1 & 2 (hereinafter referred as Ops) praying for the following reliefs:-

i.        The complainant be compensated with Rs.75,000/- for the unfair trade practice of the respondents.

ii.       The balance amount of payment be waived.

iii.      An amount of Rs.10,000/- be awarded as legal costs and the R.C. of the tractor in question be given back to the complainant.

2.       Briefly put the facts of the case as per complainant are that the complainant is an agriculturist and he purchased one Mohindra Tractor 605 from Lally Autos, Banga Road, Nawanshahr on 02.02.2009 for Rs.5,30,000/-. The down payment of Rs.1,00,000/- was made by the complainant whereas the balance sale price of Rs.4,30,000/- was agreed to be financed by OP No. 1 through its financial arm which is OP.No.2 . At the time of holding negotiations it was represented to the complainant that the loan of Rs.4,30,000/- was being advanced for a period of 5 years and it will carry a simple interest @ 11% P.A. The interest amount @ 11% was calculated at Rs.2,36,500/- and after adding the original loan amount, the complainant was told to discharge a total amount of Rs.6,56,500/- over the period of 5 years. The tractor in question bears registration No. PB 32 AJ 8714.

3.       Till date the complainant has paid an amount of Rs.5,96,000/- in eight installments of Rs.74,600/-. When the complainant had gone to the respondents for discharging the balance amount of loan which is less than Rs.60,000/-. The OPs refused to accept the same and instead asked for Rs.1,50,000/-. When the complainant demanded registration certificate of the tractor from the OPs they blankly refused to hand over the R.C.  The OPs are guilty of unfair trade practice and in the end relief as prescribed at the outset of this order has been claimed.

4.       On being put to notice Sh. Harjinder Singh Lally owner of OP. No. 1 appeared in person on 10.10.2014 but subsequently abstained from the proceedings. Hence, proceeded ex parte vide order dated 15.10.2014.

5.       In response to notice of complaint OP No. 2 filed written statement  taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has suppressed material facts and relied on false documents. This Forum does not have any jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. The complaint is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground that the complainant is not a consumer. The complainant while applying for the said loan conclusively accepted the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. The documents of loan contained complete information on “Fees and Charges”, “Late Fee Charges”, “Finance Charges” and “The Scheduled of Charges” which were explained to the complainant. Statement of account has been regularly issued to the complainant every month and the complainant has never disputed the same, thus being aware of his outstanding dues payable he willfully defaulted in the payment.  The loan agreement was executed with the complainant vide agreement No.1130891 for a loan of Rs.4,30,000/-. The complainant while applying for the said loan conclusively accepted to be bound by the terms and conditions of the loan agreement pursuant to which he was granted loan. Presently as on 29.12.2014 an amount of Rs.1,72,000/- is outstanding against the complainant.  On merit purchase of tractor by the complainant has been accepted. It is incorrect that when the complainant went to the opposite party the OP refused to accept the outstanding amount. The complainant is bound to make the payment of the loan amount as per terms of the loan agreement agreed upon. The registration certificates and the NOC’s are released/issued after the liquidation of the loan raised by the borrower. There has been no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the responding OP.  All the other allegations made the complaint have been categorically denied.

Subsequently, as none appeared on behalf of OP No.2 on 05.01.2015 and 08.01.2015.  OP No.2 was proceed ex parte vide order dated 15.01.2015.

6.                 We have heard the complainant and have gone through the record filed/placed on behalf of complainant carefully.

7.                During oral submissions the complainant submitted  that at the time of receiving loan he was given to understand that the loan amount will carry simple interest @11%  but he was charged interest @ 15% . The complainant also claimed that he was made to sign on the plain papers.

8.                He also submitted that he was not given copy of loan agreement.  He used to deposit installment of Rs.74,600/- and in all the 8 installments, total amount of Rs.5,96,000/- has been paid. Had the OPs charged interest @11% P.A. as agreed upon the total dues outstanding should have been Rs.79,000/-. Whereas the OPs are claiming Rs.1,72,000/- which means they have charged the interest @15% P.A.

9.                After considering the oral arguments advanced by the complainant, we are of the opinion that though he claimed that the agreed upon interest rate was @11% P.A. but he has miserably failed to bring any documents or cogent evidence to substantiate his claim.  No copy of loan agreement entered into has been brought of record. Bald assertions of the complainant cannot be relied upon in the absence of any documents to support them. The complainant has paid 8 (Eight) installments against the loan sanctioned aggregating to Rs.5,96,000/- without raising any objection at any stage. The onus to prove that the Ops have charged interest at the excessive rate than it was agreed upon is on the complainant. He failed to discharge the same.

10.              In view of the above discussion, we find no merits in the complaint filed by the complainant and the same is hereby dismissed with no orders as to costs.

11.              The arguments in the complaint were heard on 26.02.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.

12.                File be indexed and consigned to the record room after compliance of order.

 

Dated:  11.03.2015

 

 

 

(Sudha Sharma)           (Karnail Singh)             (Neena Sandhu)

Member                         Member                         President