STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

First Appeal No  :      255 of 2015

Date of Institution:      18.03.2015

Date of Decision :       07.04.2015

1.     Tata Motors Finance Limited, Ist Floor, SCO number 223, Sector-12, City Centre, Karnal.

2.     Tata Motors Finance Limited, Sector 25, Industrial Area, Panipat.  

                                      Appellants-Opposite Parties

Versus

Ramdhan s/o Sh. Amar Singh, Resident of Village and Post Office Madina, Tehsil Gohana, District Sonepat.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri Puneet Tuli, Advocate for appellants.

                                                   O R D E R

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

This Opposite Parties’ appeal is directed against the order dated February 16^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Panipat in Complaint No.144 of 2012.

2.      Ramdhan-complainant (respondent herein) purchased a TATA Sumo, bearing registration No.HR-11-HT-0329 after raising loan of Rs.3,80,000/- from TATA Motors Finance Limited (for short ‘Tata Motors’)-Opposite Parties (appellants herein). The loan amount also comprised of the premium Rs.15,668/- with respect towards the insurance policy of the vehicle.  The respondent paid the instalments regularly. In all, he paid Rs.4,63,570/- towards the loan amount. According to the respondent only an amount of Rs.22,580/- remained to be paid to Tata Motors but they demanded Rs.1,12,421/-. The respondent wanted the details of the loan amount but Tata Motors did not provide him. He filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

3.      Tata Motors-Opposite Parties contested complaint by filing reply. It was stated that as per Hypothecation Cum Guarantee Agreement dated October 26^th, 2007, the respondent had agreed to repay the loan amount with Rs.94,840/- as finance charges and Rs.25,000/- towards insurance premium. It was denied that the loan amount comprised of the insurance premium of Rs.15,668/-. The respondent was irregular in paying the loan instalments. Evern after the adjustment of the amount an amount of Rs.1,30,561/- was due against the respondent as on March 22^nd, 2013. They prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      After evaluating the evidence of the parties, vide impugned order the District Forum accepted complaint and issued direction to the appellants-opposite parties to recover the balance amount of Rs.36,470/- instead of Rs.1,30,561/- and then to issue ‘No Dues Certificate’ to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receiving the amount.

5.      As per the documents furnished on the record, the insurance premium of Rs.15,668/- only was paid to the Insurance Company, therefore, the opposite parties could not charge beyond the insurance premium paid to the Insurance Company. Besides this, the loan was repayable with interest, so there was no question of finance charges of Rs.94,840/- from the respondent-complainant. There is no reference of any such finance charges being leviable.  In this view of the matter, the District Forum has rightly allowed the complaint and issued direction, stated above. No case for interference is made out.

6.      The appeal is dismissed.

CL