BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 65 of 2017
Date of Institution : 20.3.2017
Date of Decision : 29.1.2018.
Surender Kumar, aged 26 years son of Sh. Milkhraj, resident of village Mangala, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- Magma Finance Company Dabwali road, Sirsa.
- Padam Motors Private Limited through authority, Signatory Manager, in front of Police Post (Traffic) N.H. 10, Hisar road Sirsa.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
SH. MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE …… MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Virender Kamboj, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Saurabh Nagpal, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Opposite party no.2 given up.
ORDER
The case of the complainant in brief is that complainant had purchased a vehicle in the end of December, 2014 from Padam Motors Hisar road, Sirsa on discount of Rs.60,000/- as per scheme of the company. The total price of the vehicle was Rs.4,89,000/-. That the vehicle was to be purchased on loan as per scheme and the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- in cash and remaining amount of Rs.2,39,000/- was to be paid in installments and it was agreed that out of Rs.2,39,000/-, an amount of Rs.60,000/- will be deducted as per scheme and remaining amount was to be paid in monthly installments of Rs.8100/- each. It is further averred that complainant was to deposit the remaining amount of loan in three years and the complainant was continuing paying the installments and the proof in this regard is with the complainant. The complainant had paid installments for one year and ten months. Thereafter, they did not give the receipts of installments of three months and thereafter the ops used to take the installments from the complainant and when complainant used to demand receipts, they used to say that there is problem in their network and asked to take the receipts later on. It is further averred that now for the last one month, the complainant is being threatened by the ops telephonically that they will pick the vehicle and also stated that now the complainant has to deposit the whole amount of the vehicle whereas it was agreed that he has to make the payment in installments and the complainant is ready to deposit all the installments and three receipts of the installments of Rs.8100/- may be got delivered to the complainant. That due to act and conduct of the opposite parties, the complainant has suffered a lot of harassment, as such he is entitled to an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation from the ops and is also entitled to further amount of Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses. Besides this, he is entitled to the discount of Rs.60,000/- as per above said scheme and is entitled to receive the receipts of three installments of Rs.8100/- each. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that true fact is that the replying opposite party has financed the vehicle for Rs.2,85,000/- for the period of 47 months for which complainant had to pay Rs.3,80,700/- in total loan agreement value in 47 equal monthly EMIs of Rs.8100/- each starting from 10th December 2014 till 10th October 2018. Rest of the allegation is not concerned with the answering op and scheme if any mentioned in the above said para is matter between op no.2 and complainant. It is further submitted that hand handled devices are issued to all the employees which is used for the purpose of issuing of the receipts against the payment of EMIs. It is specifically wrong that receipt was not issued against the payment. The true facts are that hirer has not paid the EMIs on time as per schedule of payment mentioned in the agreement and became defaulter. No specific time, date and place is mentioned regarding the payment of EMI. Hirer just wants to grab the money of loan and wants to pressurize the collection team. It is further submitted that hirer is a willful defaulter and has no intention to pay the balance loan amount. No threat was ever given to the hirer/ complainant as wrongly alleged in this complaint. He has become defaulter from the very beginning of the loan account. Last payment was paid by the hirer/ complainant on 9.9.2016 and no payment was made after that. For the recovery of due loan answering opposite party has already initiated arbitration proceeding against the complainant and in this way a loan termination notice was also issued and sent to complainant on 13.1.2017 by registered post. It is further submitted that op company as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement has referred the matter in dispute to Mr. Debasis Mallick, Arbitrator and the Arbitrator has passed the arbitration award in this regard on 19.7.2017 for Rs.2,32,823/- with costs of Rs.5000/-. The said award was already sent to the complainant/ hirer by the Arbitrator through registered post. It is further submitted that no mental tension was ever caused to the complainant due to any act or conduct of the answering op or his employee. No person can take the advantage of the law unless he has completely followed the rules and obeyed the law. The complainant himself has concealed the true facts from this Forum about the pendency of the arbitration proceedings. With these averments, dismissal of complaint has been prayed for.
3. Opposite party no.2 was given up by learned counsel for complainant for want of correct address.
4. The complainant and op no.1 led their respective evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5. We have heard learned counsel for complainant as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.1 and have perused the case file carefully.
6. It is undisputed fact between the parties that complainant had purchased a vehicle from opposite party no.2 which was got financed from op no.1. As per allegations of the complainant, he had purchased this vehicle for a consideration of Rs.4,89,000/- out of which Rs.2,50,000/- were paid by him and he got finance of Rsa.2,39,000/- and there was discount offer of Rs.60,000/- under a scheme. Further there are allegations of the complainant that he paid installments for one year and ten months against which receipts were issued in token of payments and thereafter three installments of Rs.8100/- each were paid by him but however receipts were not issued by the official of op no.1 rather complainant is being threatened by official of op no.1 that his vehicle will be repossessed and will be sold. The complainant has reiterated the averments of his complaint in his affidavit Ex.C1/A. On the other hand, there is specific plea of the op no.1 that the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the payment schedule. A sum of Rs.2,85,000/- was financed for the purchase of the vehicle and the complainant was required to repay loan amount with installments of for total amount of Rs.3,80,700/- in 47 equal monthly installments of Rs.8100/- each but however complainant did not repay installments as per repayment schedule, as a result of complainant became regular defaulter in making payment. For the recovery of due loan amount, the op no.1 had initiated arbitration proceedings against the complainant as per terms and conditions of the loan agreement. Sh. Debasis Mallick, Arbitrator passed the arbitration award on 19.7.2017 for Rs.2,32,823/- with cost of Rs.5000/-.
7. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for op no.1 has contended that op no.1 had given a standing offer to the complainant to pay lump sum amount of Rs.1,95,000/- towards full and final settlement of the loan amount but however complainant did not turn up to accept the offer and to make full and final payment by honoring offer given up no.1.
8. The bone of contention between the parties is qua the repayment of the loan amount. Though complainant has claimed that he has already paid 22 installments but however op no.1 admitted payment of 19 installments of Rs.8100/- each. So, it will be in the fitness of things, if the accounts are settled between the parties while sitting together.
9. In view of the above, we partly allow the present complaint qua opposite party no.1 and direct the opposite party no.1 to overhaul the account of the complainant in the presence of complainant after serving a ten days prior notice to the complainant and to make repayment schedule afresh within further 15 days and the opposite party no.1 shall be bound to deduct all the payments which had been made by the complainant towards the loan amount against proper receipt and verification. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:29.1.2018. Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
