BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

                                        Complaint Case No : 1063 of 2009

                                        Date of Institution   :    28.07.2009

                                        Date of Decision     :    16.12.2009

Arun Kaura son of Late Sh.O.N.Kaura, Resident of H.No.15, Sector 16-A, Chandigarh, presently residing at House No.3243, Sector 23-D, Chandigarh.

….…Complainant

                                V E R S U S

M/s Tata Motor Finance Ltd., SCO No.1124-1125, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh, through its Authorized Signatory.

                                        ..…Opposite Party

CORAM:    SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL       PRESIDENT

                SH.SIDDHESHWAR SHARMA         MEMBER

DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL              MEMBER

Argued by:        Complainant in person.

Sh.D.K.Singal, Adv. for OP

PER SHRI SIDDHESHWAR SHARMA, MEMBER

                The complainant after purchasing one vehicle bearing Regd. No.CH-03-Y-0617 duly financed from OP was regularly paying the monthly installments of  Rs.6390/-.  It is averred that one installment was due on 26.3.2009, which could not be deposited on that date as he got some urgent work and the OP was telephonically informed that the said installment would be deposited on 27.3.2009 but inspite of all that the Haridwar Office of OP stopped his car, when he was on his way from Noida to Haridwar, and asked him to deposit nine installments at once; they used unparliamentary language and stopped him for about 7 hours and harassed a lot whereas all the installments were being paid regularly.  After reaching Chandigarh, the complainant brought this matter to the notice of OP as well as their Head Office at Bombay but no action was taken.  Ultimately, a legal notice was sent to OP vide Ann.C-6 but that too did not yield any result.  Therefore, the present complaint has

been filed alleging the above act of OP as gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice due to which the complainant has to suffer great mental tension and physical harassment.  

2]             OP filed reply and admitted that the vehicle was financed by them.  It is stated that the complainant has been regularly defaulting in making payment of installments from July, 2008 and then from March, 2009 onwards and since the complainant himself is defaulter, so he was not entitled to any relief. It is also stated that the complainant has made false submissions to avoid the payment of installments due from March, 2009.  It is further stated that even as on 25^th or 26^th March, 2009 only a sum of Rs.6,408/- was due against the complainant towards principal outstanding and as such the question of demanding nine installments at once, as alleged, did not arise.  Rest of the allegations have been denied and it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

3]             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4]             We have heard the complainant and ld.Counsel for OP and have perused the record. 

5]             The complainant submitted that after obtaining loan from OP for purchasing the vehicle on monthly repayment installment of Rs.6390/- which he was paying regularly except for one installment, also deposited on 27.3.2009.  Despite that his car was stopped by the OP staff at Haridwar for non-payment of installments and he was asked to deposit nine installments.  He has alleged that OP staff used unparliamentary & filthy language against him and harassed him for about 7 hours.  On reaching Chandigarh, the matter was reported to OP as also their Head Office at Bombay and even the legal notice Ann.C-6 bore no fruit.

6]             On the contrary, the ld.Counsel for the OP admitted to having financed the vehicle in question to the complainant but in the same breath submitted that the complainant had been a defaulter in making re-payment of installments from July, 2008 and then from March, 2009 onwards and when the complainant himself was a defaulter, he was not entitled to any relief.  All the averments made in his complaint being false but made just to avoid the payment of installments as due from march, 2009.  As on 25/26^th March, 2009, a sum of Rs.6408/- was due against the complainant towards principal outstanding and thus there was no question of demanding 9 installments at once at one time and that too in Haridwar, as alleged by the complainant, does absolutely not arise. 

7]             The complainant has told a lie when he mentioned in para 7 of the complainant that he had been regularly making payment of installments by way of Demand Drafts.  He also produced the copies of the Demand Draft with the complaint as annexure C-1 to C-5 in support of his contention.  However, this plea was found to be false when on 19.10.09 the complainant produced the aforesaid 5 drafts + 2 more drafts each of Rs.6,390/- for handing over to the Counsel for the OP. However, the Counsel for the OP refused to accept the drafts on the ground that the bank may charge some interest from him for late payment in accordance with the agreement between the parties.  It therefore suggests, firstly that the complainant was defaulter in making the payment of installments by due dates and secondly that he had told a lie in para 7 of his complaint that he had been making regular payment of installments. This fact by itself disentitles the complainant to any relief from this Forum.

8]             The ld.Counsel for the OP further submitted that they were regularly following the complainant and persuading him to make the timely payments of his due installments and the photocopies of the drafts have been placed to show that the complainant has been irregular in making repayments of the installments while for other installments, he has not given any such evidence. 

9]             The complainant has not placed on record the account statement of his bank to establish that regular installments were being timely paid by him and the loan amount was timely debited from his account in favour of the OP in respect of the loan availed of by him for purchase of the vehicle in question.  Had that been the situation, the complainant must have placed on record his pass-book entries or account statement, but he did not, which show mala-fide on the part of the complainant.  Since, the complainant himself was not regular in making timely payment of the due installments to OP, hence he is not entitled to any relief. 

10]            The ld.Counsel for the OP has citied the case law of Chellappan Vs. Kerala Financial Corporation, 2003(2) CPC 265, wherein it has been held that where the complainant is at default, the complaint was not maintainable. 

11]            In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the complaint is devoid of any merit.  The same is accordingly dismissed.

                Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.