Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/10/290

Surjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Services Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Surinder Vohar

20 Jan 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

Consumer Complaint  No.290 of 2010

                                           Date of institution : 04.11.2010                       

                                             Date of decision    : 20.01.2017

Surjit Singh son of Sh. Kartar Singh, resident of village Jamitgarh, Tehsil & District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Services Limited, SCO-134, Ist Floor, Chhoti Baradari, The Mall, Patiala through its authorized Signatory.

…..Opposite Party

Complaint Under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act.                                              

Quorum

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President                        

  Smt. Veena Chahal, Member                 

  Sh. Amar Bhushan Aggarwal, Member

Present :  Sh.Harkamal Singh, Adv. counsel for the complainant.           

                Sh. S.K. Joshi, Adv.Cl. for the opposite party.

ORDER

 

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President

                      The present complaint has been remanded back by Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab Chandigarh for deciding the same afresh in accordance with law. Accordingly, the brief facts of the complaint are as under:-         

2.                   The complainant got financed Qualis Vehicle bearing Registration No. PB-08/AH-9947 from the Opposite party( hereinafter referred as 'OP') for a sum of Rs.1,93,175/-. The complainant was required to pay the said amount through installments of Rs.5825/- each.  The complainant is regularly depositing the installments of the said loan with the OP. It is further stated that the complainant is using the said vehicle for earning his livelihood. The complainant had deposited Rs.2,34,000/- with the OP. It is further stated that at the time of releasing the above said loan amount, the OP obtained five blank signed cheques, drawn on Punjab National Bank, from the complainant. The complainant requested the OP to disclose the balance amount, if any, due towards the complainant but the OP refused to disclose the same, rather OP is intending and threatening to snatch the above said vehicle from the complainant forcible and illegally. It also threatened to misuse the said blank signed cheques. It is further stated that previously the OP snatched the said vehicle forcibly and illegally and charged a sum of Rs.11,125/- from the complainant, as repossession charges, interest and parking charges without any right and authority. The complainant is ready to pay the due amount, if any, to the OP. The complainant so many times requested the OP to get deposited the due amount, if any, but it totally refused to do so. The act and conduct of the OP amounts to deficiency in service on its part. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OP to get deposited the remaining reasonable amount due towards the complainant after adjustment of amount already deposited by the complainant and further to pay Rs.60,000/- as damages/compensation for mental agony and harassment.

3.                   The complaint is contested by the OP. In reply to the complaint the OP raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that the complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed as no cause of action ever arose in favour of the complainant to file the present complaint; this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint and the present complaint is false, frivolous & vexatious.  As regards to the facts of the complaint OP stated that vide loan agreement No.660980 dated 18.07.2007 an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was financed by the OP to the complainant, which was to be repaid in 47 monthly installments of Rs.5825/- each alongwith interest, for the purchase of vehicle in question. The total agreement value was Rs.2,73,775/-, which included the loan amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and financial charges to the tune of Rs.73,775/-. The entire loan amount along with interest was to be paid upto 20.05.2011. As the complainant failed to repay the loan amount as per the terms stipulated in the agreement, therefore, an amount of Rs.80,352/- is outstanding on 17.08.2015 in the loan account of the complainant. The complainant has paid Rs.2,26,350/- only till 17.09.2010, which means the balance of agreement value comes out to Rs.47,425/- and Rs.32,927/- is towards the penalty for the delay in payment caused by the complainant.  The OP reserves its right to recover the said amount in accordance with law. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, the OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                   In order to prove his case the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. CW1/A, copy of RC Ex. C-1,copy of receipt regarding payment Ex. C-2, copies of receipts regarding deposit of amount Ex. C-3 to C-36 and Ex. C-37 and closed the evidence. In rebuttal the OP tendered in evidence affidavit in the shape of reply Ex.OP-1, certified copy of power of attorney Ex. OP-2, certified copy of loan agreement Ex. OP-3, certified copy of account statement Ex. OP-4 and copy of judgment mark A and closed the evidence.

5.                   Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that it is established from the deposit receipts Ex.C-3 to C-36 that the complainant had been paying the installments regularly. He stated that due to non disclosure of the balance amount by OP the complainant could not pay certain amounts and taking advantage of the same the OP imposed intentional and illegal penal charges. Learned counsel pleaded that due to the arbitrary act and conduct of the OP, the complainant is being compelled to pay a sum of Rs. Rs.32,927/- towards the penalty. He argued that due to non disclosure of the balance amount the OP had committed deficiency in service and the complainant deserves to be compensated for the same.

6.                   On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has objected to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the complainant. He stated that as per the loan agreement Ex. OP-3 the complainant is liable to pay Rs.47, 425/- and Rs.32, 927/- towards the penalty for the delay in payment by complainant. Learned counsel pleaded that in order to cover his liability complainant has filed the present complaint. 

7.         We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings, evidence written as well as oral arguments. It is evident from the sworn affidavit of the complainant Ex. CW1/A that complainant had been requesting the OP to disclose the total amount payable but the OP failed to supply the same, which resulted in penalty. It is also established from account statement Ex. OP-4 that a sum of  Rs.30777/- was pending towards the penalty for delay in payment since out of total pending penalty amount of Rs.32,927/-, Rs.2150 has already been paid(Ex. OP-4). In our opinion had the OP supplied the requisite information with regard to the balance amount pending towards the complainant, it would not have resulted in penalty amounting to Rs.30,777/-. We are of the view that due to the negligent act of the OP the complainant was made to suffer. There is another amount of Rs.47,425/- mentioned in Ex. OP-4 as preclosure control account. There is nothing clear about this as to on what account this is being charged. The complainant has already paid the total loan account alongwith interest in 47 installments from 18.07.2007 to 20.05.2011. This mentioning of repossession charges and preclosure control account is also an act of unfair trade practice. There is no document on record submitted by OPs, which may show that the OPs supplied loan agreement, loan account, rate of interest to be charged etc. to the complainant.

8.                   Accordingly, in view of our aforesaid discussion, we find that the OP had committed deficiency in service and indulged in unfair trade practice by not supplying the requisite information with regard to balance amount payable by the complainant to the OP. Although this Forum cannot go beyond the agreement entered between the parties. Thus, the OP is at liberty to recover the amount of Rs.30777/- from the complainant due as per the terms and conditions of the agreement by following due process of law. In case the OP included the amount of litigation, if any, in the said amount to be recovered from the complainant, then the same will be deducted. However, we find complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- on account of mental agony, harassment and unfair trade practice  alongwith litigation costs of Rs.5000/-. The present complaint stands accepted.

9.                   The OP is directed to comply with the order of this Forum within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In case the OP fails to comply with the same the OP shall be liable to pay 9% interest p.a on the awarded amount till its realization. 

10.                 Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated:20.01.2017

(A.P.S.Rajput)                          President

 

(Veena Chahal)                        Member

 

      (A.B.Aggarwal)                       Member