Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

This order is directed against the Order dated 22-01-2013 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Nadia in C.C. No. 93/2010 whereby the complaint has been dismissed.  Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, Complainant thereof has preferred this Appeal.

Case of the Appellant in short, is that, he purchased a vehicle under hire purchase scheme from the Respondent financier, who rendered financial assistance to the tune of Rs. 3,85,000/- to facilitate purchase of the said vehicle.  A loan agreement for this purpose was executed in between the parties on 31-05-2006.  It is the case of the Appellant that up to 08-07-2009, he paid a sum of Rs. 4,63,650/- to the Respondent.  On one occasion, the Appellant was forced to cough up Rs. 15,300/- as fine although he did not owe any amount to the Respondent.  It is the further case of the Appellant that he was also forced to pay Rs. 71,000/- and Rs. 85,000/- on 06-10-2007 and 08-07-2009, respectively, after the vehicle was forcefully repossessed by the Respondent without any prior intimation or notice.   Against such backdrop, the Appellant filed the complaint before the Ld. District Forum.  Still the Ld. District Forum dismissed the complaint.  So, this Appeal.

Rival contention of the Respondent is that the Appellant is a habitual defaulter and once surrendered the vehicle for defaulting making payment of EMIs.  Subsequently, after paying due amount, he took back the vehicle.  However, the Appellant again failed to make timely payment.  It is alleged that in order to escape payment of outstanding amount, the Appellant filed the complaint.

Decision with reasons

It appears from the impugned order that the Appellant did not pay EMIs as per payment schedule, but paid the same in a whimsical manner.  The Ld. District Forum, as it transpires from the impugned order, gone at great length to verify the tall claim of the Appellant about religious compliance of his contractual obligation and eventually found that the Appellant defaulted making payment of EMIs on several occassions resulting in escalation of outstanding dues  leaps and bounds.  We also find that during the course of argument before the Ld. District Forum, Ld. Advocate for the Appellant could not pick any hole into the statement furnished from the side of the Respondent.  No comparison statement in between schedule of payment vis-à-vis actual payment is placed either to prove the Respondent wrong.  Whenever one fails/neglects to pay EMIs as per schedule, in terms of the hire purchase agreement, interest is charged over the outstanding/defaulting amount.  In case one feels that there is any anomaly in the statement of account furnished from the side of the financier, it is incumbent upon the lonee to furnish a counter statement in order to earmark the loophole.  However, apart from filing some payment receipts, the Appellant has not furnished any authentic/corroborative document wherefrom the deficiency in service on the part of the financier it can be ascertained.  Unfortunately, nothing of this sort is placed on record from the side of the Appellant.  In absence of cogent documentary proof, claims look like rhetoric and we must make it clear that we cannot adjudicate a dispute based on surmises and conjecture.  The Appellant miserably failed establish his case by adducing tangible proof in support of his claim.  As such, we see no reason whatsoever to interfere with the impugned order.

The Appeal, accordingly, fails.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

That FA/244/2013 be and the same is dismissed ex parte without any cost.  The impugned order is hereby affirmed.