Haryana

Kaithal

140/17

Pritam Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Magma Finance Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.R.K.Sharma

28 May 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

 

Complaint No.140/2017.

Date of instt.:25.05.2017. 

                                                                   Date of Decision:29.05.2018.

 

Pritam Singh s/o Shri Mehar Singh, r/o village Batta, Tehsil Kalayat, Distt. Kaithal.

                                                                             ……….Complainant.

                                                     Versus

 

1. Magma Finance Ltd., Dhand Road, Kaithal through its Branch Manager.
2. Manager, Magma Finance Ltd., Sector-3, Namaste Chowk, Karnal.

 

..……..Opposite Parties.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.        

                        

Before:       Shri Jagmal Singh, President.

                   Shri Parmod Kumar, Member.

 

Present:     Shri R.K. Sharma, Adv. for the complainant.

                   Shri Manoj Chauhan, Adv. for OPs.

                

                   ORDER

 

(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).

 

                   The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he has availed loan facility for purchasing tractor marka John Deer from OPs for Rs.4,61,422/- and it was settled that the loan amount will be returned in eight equal installments at per half yearly and one installment fixed Rs.74230/-. It is further alleged that he had already paid cash amount of Rs.5,19,620/- by seven installments and last installment was paid by June 2017. It is further alleged that on 21.4.17, on inquired he came to know that three installments is still pending towards him, then he asked to OP No.1 that there was 8 installments in total, but OP No.1 told that he has to paid 10 installments. It is further alleged that this way, the OPs had played a fraud with him. This way, the OPs are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.  

2.       Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed reply raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability and jurisdiction. It is submitted that the complainant executed an agreement dt. 16.11.2013 and agreement amount was Rs.7,42,280/- including financial income of Rs.2,49,638/- @11.8% and insurance premium amount was Rs. 31220/-; that the schedule of repayment were 10 installments; that till dt. 12.6.17 the complainant has paid Rs.5,19,620/- and Rs.208330/- alongwith penal charges is outstanding towards him. On merits, the rest of the contents of the complaint are denied and prayed for dismissal the same.

3.       In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A; documents Mark C1 to C2 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, OPs tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A; documents Ex.RA to RF and closed evidence.

4.       We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

5.       Ld. counsel for the complainant reiterated all the points mentioned in the complaint. He argued that the complainant availed loan facility for purchasing tractor from OP to the tune of Rs.4,61,422/- on 15.11.2013 and it was settled that the loan amount will be returned in eight equal installments. He further argued that the complainant had already paid cash amount of Rs.5,19,620/- by seven installments and last installment was paid by June 2017. He further argued that on 21.4.17, the complainant came to know that three installments is still pending towards him, then he asked to OP No.1 that there was 8 installments in total, but OP No.1 told that he has to paid 10 installments. He further argued that this way, the OPs had played a fraud with him.

6.       Ld. counsel for the OPs has argued that the complainant entered into an agreement dt. 16.11.2013 for purchasing a tractor and had taken loan of Rs.4,61,422/-. He further argued that as per Schedule of repayment of the loan agreement, the loan amount was to be repaid in 10 installments. He further argued that at the time of entering into agreement, the schedule of repayment was made clear to the Hirer and both guarantor and Hirer signed the same after going through the terms and condition of agreement, the copy of which is Ex.RB placed on the file. He further argued that till dt. 12.6.17 the complainant has paid Rs.5,19,620/- and Rs.208330/- alongwith penal charges is outstanding towards him.

7.       From the submissions of the parties, it is clear that the dispute between parties is with regard to number of installments. According to the complainant, the loan amount of Rs.4,61,422/- was to be returned in eight equal half yearly installments of Rs.74,230/- each. According to the OPs, the loan amount was to be returned in ten equal half yearly installments and not in eight installments and this fact is clear from the agreement executed by the complainant with the OPs, the copy of which is Ex.RB.

8.       From the evidence of the case, it is clear that the complainant has executed a loan agreement with the OPs which is called “Hire Purchase Finance Agreement” and the copy of the same has been placed on the file by the OPs as Ex.RB. This “Hire Purchase Finance Agreement” bears the signatures of Pritam Singh (complainant) and his guarantor Sohan Singh on each and every page. According to Schedule-II of said agreement, the total loan amount was payable in ten installments. Therefore, the contention of the OPs that the loan amount was to be returned in ten equal installments, has force and the same is proved by documentary evidence. The complainant has not produced any such evidence vide which it can be proved that the loan amount in question was to be returned in eight installments. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the complainant has failed to prove the allegations leveled in the complaint. Hence, we found no deficiency on the part of the OPs.

9.       Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt.29.05.2018.

                                      (Parmod Kumar),                (Jagmal Singh),

                                             Member.                        President.

 

 

Present:      Shri R.K. Sharma, Adv. for the complainant.

                   Shri Manoj Chauhan, Adv. for the OPs.

                            

                   Remaining arguments heard. Order pronounced, vide our separate order in detail of even dated, the present complaint is dismissed. File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.

 

Dated:29.05.2018.                  Member.                                   President.