SRI BIJOY KUMAR DAS,PRESIDENT:-
Deficiency in service in respect of illegal and arbitrary demand of loan outstandings dues and threat of repossession of Complainant’s financed vehicle are the allegations arrayed against the Opp.Parties.
2. Complaint, in brief reveals that, Complainant to maintain his livelihood purchased a vehicle as Mahindra Bolero Maxi Truck-2WD-BS2, bearing Regd. No. OR-05-AL-9886 availing the finance from Op-Company to the tune of Rs. 2,90,000/-. After closure of the loan dues, Complainant availed a refinance of Rs. 1,79,000/- by executing an agreement bearing No. CUTT10508310004 on dtd.03.09.2015. As per the agreement the loan outstandings of Rs.2,24,692.84 are to be cleared in between dt. 05.05.2015 to 05.08.2017 with 23 monthly installments. Complainant in the meantime has paid Rs. 1,45,200/-, thus the balance outstandings remains to the tune of Rs. 79,492.84. But Op-finance Company demanded an arbitrary amount of Rs. 1,15,634 and issued a Notice on 22.05.2017 to repay the loan outstanding dues. Complainant on enquiry requested the Op-finance Company to justify the loan outstandings, but Op-finance Company did not response the grievance of the complainant. Such Acts of the Op-Finance Company is treated as deficiency in service by the Complainant and preys this Forum seeking a direction to Op to fix the loan outstandings to the tune of Rs. 79,492/- and not to reposes the vehicle and further preys for a compensation amount of Rs. 30,000/- for finance loss and mental agony.
3. Op-finance Company on receipt of the Notice appeared into the dispute through their Ld. Counsel and filed written statement challenging the maintainability of the Complaint and denies the allegations of any deficiency in service by citing a number of decisions of higher Courts. The gist of the written statement, reveals that Complainant by executing an agreement with the Op-finance Company on dtd. 03.09.2015 availed a total financed amount of Rs. 2,24,566/-, which is to be repaid within 24 monthly installments starting from dtd. 03.09.2015 to 05.08.2017. It is averred that, Complainant- loanee also availed 2 small loans towards working capital amounting of Rs. 41,988/- towards premium charges of the insurance Policy. It is further averred that, Complainant was defaulter in respect of payment of loan dues, accordingly a legal notice was served and amount of Rs. 1,15,634/- remains as outstanding till dtd. 30.05.2017 and in the circumstances the Op-finance Company has not committed any deficiency in service and has acted as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, hence the allegations on the Complainant are false, baseless is liable to be dismissed with cost.
4. Take up the hearing today, perused the documents filed by the Parties. The documents include the photocopy of the agreement alongwith schedule of payment the statement of loan account, Default Notice dtd. 11.11.2016 & 22.05.2017 and legal Notice dtd. 30.05.2017 addressed to complainant-loanee. The admitted facts of the case are that, Complainant-Loanee on availing a finance purchased a Mahindra Bolero Maxi Truck by executing an agreement on dt. 03.09.2015. It is also admitted that, Op-finance Company issued Notice to Complaint for recovery of loan dues.
The present dispute according to Op is non-maintainable before this Forum and challenge the maintainability of the complaint on different grounds under provisions of C.P.Act-1986 by citing a number of decisions. On point of maintainability, we gone through the documents filed by the parties, it is pleaded that the said vehicle was financed for earning livelihood of complainant. It is not countered by the Op-finance Company by adducing any evidence that the said vehicle was used for ‘commercial’ purposes by engaging a driver and not for earning his livelihood. Further on grounds of ‘Jurisdiction’, it is clear that, the vehicle was/is running and legal notices were served to the loanee on the local limits of this Forum, which creates a part of cause of action of the instant dispute. Further, the Op-finance Company’s defence plea is that as the dispute relates to Accounting procedure same can’t be agitated before this Forum. But on carefull consideration of the complaint, wherein it is alleged that, Op-company did not provide any statement of loan Account to check/verify the amount demanded by Op. Though the allegation is denied in a formal nature, but not substantiate their plea of denial by disclosing the real fact. Hence, not providing the statement of loan account is well within the definition of ‘service’ as provided on the C.P.Act-1986. Considering the above grounds of maintainability, we are of the unanimous view that the Complaint is maintainable before this Forum U/S 2(O) of C.P.Act-1986.
Complainant on his petition alleges excess demand of arrear loan outstandings by Op without considering the amount of actual payments made by the complainant against finance of the vehicle. Countering such allegations, Op-finance Company takes the plea that as per the agreement, when Complaint-loanee was in default, or delay in pay the dues in time additional overdue charges and other charges are added in loanees loan account in accordance of the agreement. We perused the agreement and statement of loan account of the complainant. It appears that Complainant-loanee has violated the terms & condition of the agreement in connection to payment of EMIs. Further, in our opinion the allegation relates to accounts dispute and same cannot be treated as deficiency in service. During course of hearing, Complainant challenges the availing of working capital loan to Rs. 41,988/- which was sanctioned towards Insurance premium as stated by the Op-finance Company. Op-finance Company does not produce any document in support of sanction of disputed working capital loan of 41,988/- except in the statement of loan account, where it is reflected that the disputed working capital loan was sanctioned on dtd.24.10.2015 and on dtd.12.10.2016. As the complainant categorically on his complaint pleads that inspite of his best efforts Op-Company does not provided the copy of the statement of loan account, and in the case inhand Op-finance company fails to prove that the statement of loan account was provided to the complainant-loanee, as it is legal obligation of the parties to furnish the statement of loan account to the complainant-loanee to know the accurate figures of loan dues. In this aspect we are of the opinion that complainant is at liberty to take legal recourses to challenge the sanction of working capital loan, which is added to his vehicle loan sanctioned by the Op-finance Company on dtd. 03.09.2015.
Having observations reflected above, the complainant is disposed of accordingly and the Op-finance Company is directed not to impose any interest or overdue charges towards complainant’s vehicle loan bearing agreement No. CUTT10508310004 dtd. 03.09.2015 calculating from dt. 16.08.2017 to 24.12.2018 as the dispute was pending sub-Jude before this Forum.
Complaint is disposed of without any cost.
Pronounced in the open Court, this the 24th day of January,2019.
I, agree.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
