Presented by Sri B.K.Pati, Member<br /> The present complaint pertain to deficiency of service as envisaged under the Consumer Protection Act and its brief history is as follows:-<br /> <br /> The Complainant voluntarily surrendered at the Opposite Parties's Sambalpur Branch, his TATA Indica V2 DLS Car on the Opposite Parties's order and the hire purchase agreement made for the vehicle was terminated by the Opposite Parties. The Complainant had paid a down-payment of Rs. 57,570/-(Rupees fifty seven thousand five hundred seventy)only to own the vehicle, besides, paid Rs.13,446/-(Rupees thirteen thousand four hundred forty six)only towards insurance charges, registration and road tax of Rs. 21,179/-(Rupees twenty one thousand one hundred seventy nine)only and fitted accessories worth Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only. The total amount financed by the Opposite Parties was Rs.3,21,000/-(Rupees three lakh twenty one thousand)only. The Complainant deposited 8(eight) numbers of signed blank cheques with the Opposite Parties and the Complainant was to personally deposit the EMIS at the Branch counter of the Opposite Parties. As the Complainant could not travel to Sambalpur to pay the EMIs due to medical problems of his wife, the Opposite Parties sent recovery agents and goondas to his residence and office who abused him before the public. The Opposite Parties demanded over-due interest @ 3% per month and wrote him to pay Rs.3,65,786/-(Rupees three lakh sixty five thousand seven hundred eighty six)only within seven days, which, according to him, he had never availed of.<br /> <br /> On Dt. 17/02/2006 the Complainant surrendered the Car to the Opposite Parties although he had spent a considerable amount to won the Car, only to save his prestige, and the contract was terminated. On Dt.03/07/2007 the Complainant received a letter from the Opposite Parties, informing him, that they had sold the car and demanding to repay the balance of Rs.1,32,031/-(Rupees one lakh thirty two thousand thirty one)only within seven days, failing which they will sue the Complainant, which, the Complainant terms as deficiency of service. The Complainant fears that the 8(eight) numbers of blank undated signed cheques, handed over to the Opposite Parties at the time of taking finance, would be misused to implicate him U/S 138 of the N.I. Act.<br /> <br /> The Complainant claims from the Opposite Parties Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees two lakh)only towards compensation for such, mental agony and humiliation and Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only towards litigation expenses. <br /> <br /> The Opposite Parties, in their version, denies the Complainant to be a consumer but claim that he is a borrower availing of loan of Rs.3,21,000/-(Rupees three lakh twenty one thousand)only to purchase a TATA Indica V2 car by entering into a hire purchase agreement bearing No. PG/0020/C/04/000032 with the Opposite Parties. As the Complainant defaulted in repayment his vehicle was repossessed by the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties contends that the contract still persists. The Opposite Parties admit that the Complainant made a down payment of Rs.57,570/-(Rupees fifty seven thousand five hundred seventy)only, the Complainant did not register the vehicle as per the term of the contract. They express their ignorance as to whether the Complainant had fitted accessories in the Car. It is denied by the Opposite Parties that the Complainant had deposited 8(eight) numbers of blank cheques with them. The Complainant had tendered only one cheque bearing No. 507706 for Rs.1,20,632/-(Rupees one lakh twenty thousand six hundred thirty two)only to repay the balance loan amount but the said cheque was returned as unpaid due to insufficient fund in the account of the Complainant. The Complainant was asked on Dt.03/07/2007 to repay the arrear amount and as the Complainant did not repay the same, on Dt.17/07/2007 Mr. S.K. Chaterjee, Kalkota, has been appointed as arbitrator in terms of the hire purchase finance agreement and the same fact has been intimated to the Complainant and thereafter, the Complainant has filed the present case on false ground to evade payment of arrear dues and to save himself from the legal consequences. The Opposite Parties claim that as per clause 2(f) of Hire Purchase finance agreement the Complainant is liable to pay over-due interest @ 3% per month compounded monthly. The contract can't be said to be terminated until repayment of all the outstanding loan amount and serving of a demand notice to a loanee can't be termed as deficiency of service. The Opposite Parties claim that there is no cause of action against the Opposite parties and this Forum lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present proceeding. As per the terms of the agreement the dispute between the parties has been referred to the arbitrator before the filing of the present case, hence, this proceeding is not maintainable in the eye of law. The Opposite Parties pray for dismissal of the complaint with cost. <br /> <br /> Perused the Complaint, version of the Opposite Parties and the copies of the documents filed by the Parties in support of their respective cases and find as follows:-<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party No.1(one) being a financing company and the Complainant availing of its services as such, is a consumer of the Opposite Parties and the cause of action having arisen and the Opposite Parties carrying on business within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum, the present complaint is very much triable by this Forum. The referring of the dispute to an arbitrator by the Opposite Parties can't take away the right of the Complainant to agitate the matter in the Forum, neither does it oust the jurisdiction of the Consumer Law Agencies to try the same. <br /> <br /> The fact of the Complainant having paid a down payment of Rs,57,570/- (Rupees fifty seven thousand five hundred seventy)only and monthly installments totaling Rs.32,580/-(Rupees thirty two thousand five hundred eighty)only, are admitted. The Complainant has paid Rs. 13,446/-(Rupees thirteen thousand for hundred forty six)only, towards insurance of the vehicle, Rs.21,179/-(Rupees twenty one thousand one hundred seventy nine)only, towards registration and road tax and Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only, for fitting accessories in the vehicle. The Complainant files a documents to prove the insurance and the expenses he has incurred for registration and accessories of the vehicle has not been disproved by the Opposite Parties. The Complainant could not go to Sambalpur to deposit the installments, allegedly, due to ill health of his wife but expresses willingness to pay the equal monthly installments along with late fine and other incidental charges. But the Opposite Parties took resort to coercive method and strong arm tactic, forcing the Complainant to surrender the vehicle for repossession by the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties have resold the Car with out giving an opportunity to the Complainant to sell the same with the best price available to him. <br /> <br /> Intimidation of a loanee by the financing institutions through both physical and mental harassment are most reprehensible acts that are being widely resorted to by such institutions. Here, the Complainant has been a victim of such act by the Opposite Parties. The Forum condemns this type of practice by the Opposite Parties which can't be allowed in a civil society.<br /> <br /> In view of the facts and circumstance of the case, the Forum concludes that, the hire purchase agreement between the Complainant and the Opposite Parties stands terminated. The Opposite Parties are directed not to make any further financial claim from the Complainant towards repayment of the loan in question. The Opposite Parties shall pay to the Complainant Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand)only, towards litigation expenses within thirty days from the date of Order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum till the date of actual payment.<br /> Complaint allowed accordingly.<br />