Order-12.
Date-28/08/2015.
In this complaint Complainant Smt. Peu Dutta by filing this complaint has submitted that she took financial loan from the op after satisfying all the formalities by executing agreement and complainant executed Hire-Purchase Agreement and is duty bound to pay the EMI which complainant has been paying positively every month by deduction of her Bank A/c by ECS.But despite making huge payment, op no.1 is trying to grab the suit property/car by receiver or otherwise by means of force.
Most interesting factor is that complainant received different kinds of Demand Notices from the op nos. 1 & 2 which are dated 28.08.2012 for amount of Rs. 55,000/-, again on same date due amount of Rs. 3,89,200/- and another Demand Notice dated 24.02.2015 due amount of Rs. 1,61,004/-
So, considering those demand notices and inconsistent amount and figure as due on the part of the complainant and complainant is completely perplexed and further op no.1 by a letter informed the complainant that only 24 installments are due on the part of complainant.Already complainant has paid major number of installments and practically there is no due and he has been paying balance EMIs.But the attempt on the part of the op is completely uncalled for, illegal, arbitrarily and in fact by the ops’ men she is being tortured, threated and op is trying to reposes the car without any valid reason giving no dues certificate, but same should be released by giving no dues certificate by a settlement in between the parties.But in view of the op is harassing the complainant for which complainant filed this complaint for relief.
On the other hand op by filing written statement submitted that the entire complaint is false and not maintainable and vehicle was allegedly financed by the op no.1 in favour of the complainant and a vehicle loan cum hypothecation Agreement was executed by the complainant on 28.02.2014 and against that Agreement, complainant was financed of Rs. 2,80,000/- for purchase of a car make of Chevrolet (TAVERA) of 2008 bearing Registration No. WB-42S-8515 etc.
As per agreement, complainant was ready to pay the loan of Rs. 2,80,000/- in 35 installments at the rate of Rs. 11,000/- per month save and except the 1st EMI for Rs. 15,200/- commencing from 22.09.2012 till 22.07.2015.As on 29.06.2015 the due installment is Rs. 1,24,450/- and the overdue charges is Rs. 38,160/- and the collection charges is Rs. 5,000/- totaling to Rs. 1,67,610/-.In fact complainant failed to pay the installment regularly for which the Demand Notice was sent and in the above circumstances the complainant is a defaulter for which the present complaint should be dismissed.
Decision with reasons
On proper consideration of the evidence and materials on record and also the argument as advanced by the Ld. Lawyers of both the parties and further considering the statement of account as submitted by the op, it is clear that out of 35 installments, complainant has already paid 24 installments that is including 1st installment of Rs. 15,200/- and subsequent installment at the rate of Rs. 11,000/- and complainant lastly paid 24 installments on 05.02.2011 and he is bound to pay balance 11 installments at the rate of Rs.11,000/- that means he is bound to pay Rs. 1,21,000/- to clear up the balance 11 installments and last date of payment of 35 installments on 22.07.2015.But complainant has not paid it.But it is admitted by the op that due installment is Rs. 1,02,450/- and they have charged overdue charges to the extent of Rs. 1,03,813/- and accordingly complainant has claimed Rs. 2,06,263.56 paisa.
But after considering the calculation and the entire materials, it is found that in total complainant is liable to pay Rs. 1,02,450/- and some penal charges of Rs. 22,000/- i.e. total Rs. 1,24,450/- and if complainant pays it, in that case, op has no legal ground to take any coercive method and to depute such musclemen for disturbing the complainant and take such vehicle by any illegal means and in the above situation we find that if complainant pays Rs. 1,24,450/- at a time, in that case op has no legal right to reposess the vehicle by any means and further any overact on the part of the op in this regard is found unfair trade practice and deceitful manner of trade.
Considering all the above facts, we find that complainant has no doubt proved the deficiency and negligence on the part of the op and their illegal act and attempt to repossess the car by any means.
In the above circumstances, we are inclined to hold that there is sufficient ground to allow this complaint with litigation cost of Rs. 2,000/- against the ops.Thus the complaint succeeds.
Hence, it is
Ordered,
That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against the ops with cost of Rs. 2,000/-.
Op no.1 to receive the balance amount of Rs. 1,24,450/- from the complainant and to issue NOC and to settle the Loan Agreement as finally cleared and release car from hypothecation and not to disturb the complainant by any means whatsoever.
Complainant is directed to deposit the aforesaid amount of Rs. 1,24,450/- within 45 days from the date of this order to the op no.1’s office by issuing a cheque in favour of the op and op no.1 shall have to receive the same and encash it and after encashment they shall have to release the complainant from the said agreement treating the agreement is finally disposed of and issue NOC within one month from the date of receipt of the said amount and op shall not have to take any illegal recourse or forces for repossessing the car by any means.
Parties are directed to comply the order and shall have to report about order very strictly by both the parties, if op fails to comply the order in that case op shall be imposed further penalty and damages as per Section 25 read with 27 of C.P. act 1986.
But if complainant fails to comply the order, in that case, op shall have their liberty to proceed and accordingly as per letter by starting a legal proceeding before Civil Court but not otherwise.
