BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint No.75/17.
Date of instt.:14.3.2017.
Date of Decision:08.02.2018.
Manjinder Singh s/o Shri Jasvinder Singh, r/o village Mardanheri, Tehsil Assandh, Distt. Karnal through SPA Holder Shri Jasvinder Singh, aged 55 years, r/o Shri Amar Singh, r/o village Mardanheri, Tehsil Assandh, Distt.Karnal.
……….Complainant. Versus
Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Service Ltd., 1st Floor, Ram Sila Building, near IDBI Bank, Dhand Road, Kaithal.
……..Opposite Party.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Shri Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Shri Rajesh Malik, Adv. for the complainant.
Shri Manoj Ichhpilani, Adv. for the OP.
ORDER
(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he is registered owner of vehicle combine harvester bearing No.HR40F-9406 and the OP is financer of vehicle. It is further alleged that he wanted to purchase a combine harvester from company and wanted to finance the same with OP. It is further alleged that valuation of said vehicle was assessed as Rs.17,60,000/- by Nanku Agro Tech Pvt. Ltd. Patiala and OP agreed to finance the same and as per agreement value of Rs.15,13,600/- and paid down payment of Rs.2,46,000/-. It is further alleged that first installment was assessed Rs.1,89,200/- half yearly and total installments to repay the financed amount are 48 months i.e. from 27.2.2016 to 20.2.2020. It is further alleged that as per account statement, he had shown paid Rs.1,89,200/- till 22.12.2016 and the balance shown as Rs.23,336/-, while he had also paid Rs.40,000/- plus Rs.1,89,200/- and the OP told to him that further amount will be adjusted in further installment. It is further alleged that now the OP wants to adjust the said amount of Rs.40,000/- as miscellaneous expenses, which is illegal. It is further alleged that unfortunately his brother was met with an accident and he had spent huge amount on his treatment and so, he was not in position to pay the advance installment and requested the OP to adjust Rs.40,000/- in his account/installment, but the OP refused to do so. It is further alleged that at the time of said alleged agreement the OP had taken four blank singed cheque from him and now OP wants to grab the amount of Rs.40,000/- and threatened to produce the said blank cheque without amount in the bank and to file a complaint against him. This way, the OP is deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, OP appeared and filed reply raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability; jurisdiction; cause of action. It is further submitted that in February 2016, the complainant approached the OP for financial assistance to purchase a vehicle; that OP on 27.2.2016 vide agreement No.4113706 financed one Combine Harvester to the complainant; that under that loan agreement, OP financed Rs.10,08,700/- excluding financial charges to be repaid by way of installments of Rs.1,89,200/- to OP; that it was further agreed between the parties and any delay in payment of EMI’s, after the due dates, the complainant shall pay a delayed payment charges @ 3 % on the EMI’s that have been paid after the due dates; that this is evident from Clause 4(b) of the Loan Agreement that an additional finance charge in form of late charges shall be levied on the amount that has remained outstanding beyond the due date; that the complainant has been irregular in making his payments of EMI on respective due dates, for which delayed payment charges have been levied on the complainant; that the total delayed payment charges as accumulated until 03.5.2017 amount to Rs.39331/-; that it is denied that balance shown after payment of installment of Rs.1,89,200/- was Rs.23336/-; that it is also denied that complainant paid Rs.40,000/- plus Rs.1,89,200/- on 22.12.2016; that whatever money is paid to the OP by way of EMI, a receipt is always issued to the customer for the same amount, but the complainant has not submitted any proof regarding the payment made by him to the OP; that the complainant calls upon to submit the proof of payment for the allegation leveled against the OP. 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 Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 & Mark CA and closed evidence on 24.7.2017. On the other hand, the OP tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A; documents Ex.R1 and closed evidence on 25.9.2017.
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. From the pleadings and evidence of the parties, it is not disputed that the complainant financed Vishal 435 Brisk Combine Harvester bearing No. HR-40F-9406 from OP for a sum of Rs.15,13,600/- as assessed by Manku Agrotech Pvt. Ltd.
6. The complainant alleged that as per the account statement, the complainant had shown paid Rs.1,89,200/- till 22.12.2016, while he had also paid Rs.40,000/- plus Rs.1,89,200/-. It is further alleged that the OP wants to adjust the amount of Rs.40,000/- as miscellaneous expenses, which is illegal. On the other hand, the OP contended that it was agreed between the parties that any delay in payment of EMI’s, after the due dates, the complainant shall pay a delayed payment charges @ 3% on the EMI’s. It is further contended that whatever money is paid to the OP by way of EMI, a receipt is always issued to the customer for the same amount, but the complainant has not submitted any proof regarding the payment made by him to the OP and the complainant calls upon to submit the proof of payment for the allegation leveled against the OP. From above, it is clear that the dispute between the parties as per the complainant is with regard to Rs.40,000/-. The complainant alleged that he had paid Rs.40,000/- with installment of Rs.1,89,200/-, but on the other hand, the OP contended that the complainant failed to produce any receipt in this regard. It is pertinent to mention here that both the parties have failed to place any documentary evidence on the file in this regard. Without detailed and sufficient evidence, it will not be possible to decide the matter in question in the summary proceedings before this Forum.
7. On appraisal of rival contentions of both the parties, we found that the Civil Court is the best platform for deciding the matter in controversy where elaborate and detailed evidence can be produced. In this context, we are fortified with the observations made in the case titled as Love Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh 2007(4) CPJ page 305 (NC) wherein it has been observed by Hon’ble National Commission that Complicated issues involved, not adjudicable summarily-Dismissed with liberty to seek remedy in Civil Court. In case titled as M/s. The Bills through its Proprietor Vs. PNB reported in 1998(1) CPC page 150, decided by Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh, wherein it has been mentioned that Complicated issues being involved, the matter needs to be decided by Civil Court-Complaint stands dismissed.
8. In view of above discussion, we dispose off the complaint accordingly and both the parties are at liberty to approach the Court/Civil Court of competent jurisdiction, if so desired and in that eventuality, the parties will be entitled to the benefit of Section 14(2) of Limitation Act and the time taken during the pendency of this complaint shall be exempted. 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.08.02.2018.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Presiding Member.
Present : Shri Rajesh Malik, Adv. for the complainant.
Shri Manoj Ichhpilani, Adv. for the OP.
Remaining arguments heard. Order pronounced, vide our separate order in detail of even dated, the present complaint is disposed of. File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.
Dated:08.02.2018. Member Presiding Member.
