Haryana

Karnal

579/2012

Parveen Kumar S/o Mangat Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mahindra And Mahindra Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

B.S. Kashyap

15 Mar 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                               Complaint No.579 of 2012

                                                             Date of instt.:07.12.2012

                                                              Date of decision:15.03.2017

 

Parveen Kumar son of Shri Mangat Ram resident of village Biana Tehsil Indri District Karnal.

                                                                       ……..Complainant.

                                      Vs.

Mahindra and Mahindra through its Manager Backside Bus Stand, Karnal.

 

                                                                                 ………… Opposite Party.

 

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-      Sh. B.S.Kashyap Advocate for the complainant.

                    Sh. Vineet Rathore Advocate for the Opposite party.

                  

                                     

 ORDER:

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act 1986, on the averments that he purchased “Tyota Etios VD” car bearing engine no.IND1262095 chasis no.MBJB49BT4029001 from M/s Globe Toyota by obtaining financial assistance of Rs.6,00,000/- from opposite party. The opposite party financed the vehicle on 25.6.2012. The loan was to be repaid in 35 monthly installments of Rs.20950/- each. Opposite party had also taken 25 blank cheques from him, as security.  He had been regularly paying the installments as per the agreement by cheque and cash, but the opposite party refused to issue any receipt. He wanted to apply for Registration Certificate, but the opposite party refused to get the vehicle registered, whereas the sale letter was in its possession. He demanded statement of account and receipts regarding deposit of the installments, but the opposite party flatly refused and threatened to lift the vehicle forcibly and illegally and misuse the cheques given by him. Such acts and conduct on the part of the opposite party amounted to deficiency in service, due to which he suffered mental and emotional agony.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite party, who put into appearance and filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is not maintainable; that this forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint; that the complaint is barred by limitation; that the complainant does not fall within the purview of definition of consumer; that the complaint is regarding rendition of accounts which can be decided by Civil Court as intricate questions of law and facts are involved and that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that the complainant availed loan for purchase of the vehicle and loan agreement no.2092977 was executed between him and the opposite party on 25.6.2012. The loan of Rs.60000/- was advanced to the complainant, which was to be repaid in 36 installments of Rs.20,950/-each  and out of the same one installment was taken in advance. The value of the agreement was Rs.7,33,250/-. The first installment was due on 25.6.2012 and the last installment was agreed to be paid on 25.4.2015. The repayment track of the complainant was not disciplined and most of the installments were not paid in time. The complainant in utter disregard of agreement stopped paying installments. The opposite party levied AFC on delayed payments. The complainant was required to pay the same alongwith defaulted installments immediately. Till 17.12.2012 three cheques issued by the complainant were dishonoured. The complainant was made aware of that fact and was asked to make payment of AFC and other charges including unpaid installments, but he willfully ignored. On 17.12.2012 an amount of Rs.83800/- was due besides AFC to the tune of Rs.5910/- and cheque bouncing charges. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

3.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 have been tendered.

4.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite party, affidavit of Pankaj Rana Ex.OP1/A and documents Ex.OP1/B to OP1/D  have been tendered.

5.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

6.                The complainant has alleged that he had paid some installments by cheques and cash, but the receipts were not issued to him. In the complaint, it has been submitted that he had given 25 blank cheques to the opposite party as security. The opposite party in the written statement submitted that upto 17.12.2012 three cheques issued by the complainant were dishonoured. There is no definite evidence of the complainant to rebut such plea of the opposite party. The oral evidence of the complainant by way of affidavit that cash payments were also made by him to the opposite party cannot be taken to be gospel truth and the same is not sufficient to substantiate his vague plea regarding cash payment. The complainant has not even clarified as to how many installments were paid by him in cash and on which dates. Therefore, it cannot be accepted that the complainant had paid any installment in cash to the opposite party. Documents Ex.C3 and C4 indicate that the opposite party had filed one complaint against the complainant under sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instrument Act in respect of cheque no.009546, which was dishonoured with the remarks “Account Closed”. The opposite party has produced the copy of the agreement, according to which it was entitled to recover AFC charges for delayed payment of the installments and cheque dishonour charges. The copy of the statement of account has also been produced as Ex.OP1/B and Ex.OP1/C, according to which an amount of Rs.6,49,450/- was due towards the complainant on 6.7.2015. Learned counsel for the complainant could not point out any entry in the statement of account, which was wrongly made by the opposite party and the payments made by him were not adjusted. From such facts and circumstances, it is clearly established that the complainant did not maintain the financial discipline as per the payment schedule under the agreement, therefore, the opposite party is certainly entitled to take action as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. The complainant cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrongs of not making payment of installment on due date. Thus, the complainant has failed to establish that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

7.                As a sequel to the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the present complaint. Therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 15.03.2017

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member