Shreeram Group of Company and Chits (K) Pvt..Ltd.. V/S Mouneshappa S/o Veeranna, - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Raichur

DCFR 26/08

Mouneshappa S/o Veeranna, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shreeram Group of Company and Chits (K) Pvt..Ltd.. - Opp.Party(s)

G.Virupaxappa

30 Sep 2008

ORDER

DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,DC Office Compound, Sath Kacheri
consumer case(CC) No. DCFR 26/08

Mouneshappa S/o Veeranna,						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Shreeram Group of Company and Chits (K) Pvt..Ltd..						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

JUDGEMENT By Sri. Gururaj Member:- This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the complainant Mouneshappa against the Respondent Shri Ram Group of company and chits (K) Pvt Ltd., for deficiency in service. The brief facts of the complaint are as under: The complainant has purchased Maxi Cab vehicle bearing No. KA-27/2776 on 19-10-02 under Hire Purchase Agreement for purchase of which Respondent had financed to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000/- with interest at 13.5% p.a. repayable within (30) months even or uneven months. As per proposal sheet issued by the Respondent (30) months anti-dated interest was charged well in advance which come to Rs. 84,375/- which is not permissible under law and regarding the charging of interest is opposed to Public Policy and also Reserve Bank of India Guidelines. The complainant has taken the loan from Respondent at Raichur Branch after opening the branch at Sindhanur it was transferred to Sindhanur as per the directions of the Respondent and rest of the loan installments have been paid at Sindhanur branch. The Respondent has issued the receipts for payment of installments some are not issued he has issued the acknowledgements having received the payments and receipts will be issued after some time. The particulars of loan transactions are as under: i) Principal amount Rs. 2,50,000=00 ii) Anti dated interest for (30) months Rs. 84,375=00 iii) Insurance Rs. 30,000=00 ---------------------------- Rs. 3,64,375=00 iv) Payments made by the complainant Rs.3,84,130=00 (as detailed in Para-8 of the complaint) ------------------------------ Excess amount paid by the complainant. Rs. 19,755=00 ---------------------------- So the Respondent is liable to refund the excess sum of Rs. 19,755/- with interest at 13.5% till realization of entire amount from 14-07-05. The complainant has approached the Respondent several times but he did not receive any response. Left with no other alternative he has caused legal notice of the Respondent through his Advocate on 27-02-08 in-spite of service of legal notice the Respondent has neither made the refund of Rs. 19,755/- nor issued the clearance certificate. It goes to show that Respondent had admitted all the contents of legal notice. The Respondent is high handedly with the assistance of Gundas in the name and style of seizers of the vehicle every now and then attacking on the complainant without any authority of law. Recently the Respondent has called upon the complainant to make payment of Rs. 20,040/- without mentioning any dates or any installments etc., with heavy cost of Rs. 50,000/-. Hence for all these reasons the complainant has sought for direction to make payment of amount of Rs. 19,755/- with interest at 13.5% p.a. from 14-07-05 till realization along with cost of proceedings. For refund of excess interest collected by the Respondent and a penalty be imposed for high handed acts. Further the Respondent be directed to issue clearance certificate to the complainant forthwith. 2. The Respondent in response to service of notice appeared through counsel and filed written version/objection to the complaint as under: The entire contents of the complaint are false and frivolously complainant has availed finance from M/s. Shriram Investments Ltd., by executing Hire Purchase Cum Guarantee Agreement from Raichur Branch. In-view of availment of finance the hypothecation of M/s. Shri. Ram Investments Ltd., is entered in the registration certificate of the vehicle as required U/s. 51 of M.V. Act. This Shri Ram Investment Ltd., is merged with M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., as per the scheme of Amalgamation order passed by the High Court of Madras in Company Petition 191/2005 and 192/2005. These all true facts are well with in the knowledge of the complainant. After having full knowledge of complainant has deliberately not impleaded the proper party. Shriram Chits Ltd., (K) Pvt Ltd., is engaged in the chit business and it is in correct to the present complainant. It has been impleaded wrong with sole intention to harass the Respondent. The complainant has availed loan from M/s. Shriram investment to purchase 2000 Model TATA MAXI CAB Passenger vehicle by executing Hire Purchase Cum Guarantee Agreement on 15-10-02. In-view of availment of loan from M/s. Shriram Investment Ltd., the complainant is borrower of the financial institution and so he is not a consumer within the meaning of section 2 (1) (d) of C.P. Act. Further the loan availed by the complainant is purely for commercial purpose. So he is not a consumer under 2 (1) (d) of C.P. Act. The allegation that as per the proposal sheet issued by Respondent (30) months anti-dated interest was charged well with in advance totaling to Rs. 84,375/- was not permissible under the law and which is opposed to the public policy and the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India are all false and denied. After having executing agreement as the complainant is bound to comply with the terms and bound to pay the amount to the Respondent as per the agreement. According to the clause 3 of Hire Purchase Cum Guarantee Agreement. A punctual payment is essence of the contract. Class 5 & 6 Hire Purchase Agreement states Penalty on over due Hire Purchase Installments. The particulars of repayment as shown in Para- 8 of the complaint are in correct and not in accordance with schedule of the repayment annexed to the agreement. The allegation that this Respondent is high handedly with the assistance of Gundas in the name and style of seizure of the vehicle every now and then is attacking on the complainant without any authority of law etc., are all false. According to the terms and conditions of the agreement the complainant has availed loan and finance charges to be paid by him are as under: i) Amount financed Rs. 2,50,000=00 ii) Finance charges Rs. 84,375=00 iii) Insurance deposit Rs. 30,000=00 ---------------------------- Total amount to be repaid by the complainant Rs. 3,64,375=00 ---------------------------- 15th of every month is a date of repayment of installment. The complainant was not paying regularly 15th day. Therefore as per clause XIV second schedule of the Hire Purchase Cum Guarantee Agreement the complainant has specifically agreed and undertaken that: In case of default over due compensation not exceeding the rate of 3% per month shall be payable on the over due hire money installment. Therefore the complainant is bound to pay over due charges and pre-closure charges. This fact is within the knowledge of the complainant which has been already intimated to the complainant. The total dues payable by the complainant to the Respondent financial institution as on 31-05-08 is Rs. 1,35,812/- with legal expenses. There is no cause of action to the complainant has filed false complaint. Contrary to the terms of the Hire Purchase Cum Guarantee Agreement. The obligation arising out of agreement cannot be questioned by the complainant before this Forum. More over the rights and obligations which are conferred by the terms of the agreement cannot be construed as deficiency for service U/s. 2 (1) (d) of the C.P. Act. Hence for all these reasons the Respondent has sought for dismissal of the complaint with cost of Rs. 25,000/- 3. During the course of enquiry the complainant has filed his sworn affidavit by way of examination-in-chief. The Respondent Company in rebuttal has filed sworn-affidavit of its Senior Manger (Legal) by way of examination-in-chief. On behalf of complainant as many as (41) documents have been got marked at Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-41. On behalf of Respondent (4) documents have been got marked at Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-4. 4. Heard the arguments of counsel for the complainant. The L.C. for the Respondent has filed written version of arguments. Perused the records. The following points arise for our consideration and determination: 1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency in service by the Respondent Company, as alleged. 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief sought for. 5. Our finding on the above points are as under:- 1. In the Negative. 2. As per final order for the following REASONS POINT NO.1 :- 6. It is the case of the complainant that he has purchased Maxi Cab vehicle bearing NO. KA-27/2776 on 19-10-02 under Hire Purchase agreement dt. 19-10-02 for which Respondent had financed to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000/- with interest at 13.5% p.a. payable within (30) months even or uneven months. As per proposal sheet at Ex.P-1 issued by the Respondent (30) Months anti-dated interest was charged well in advance which comes to Rs. 84,375/- which is not permissible under law and against the Public Policy and as well as guidelines of Reserve Bank of India. It is also his case that the Respondent was not issued some of the receipts but issued only acknowledgements for having paid the installments. It is also the case of the complainant that the Respondent has collected excess amount of Rs. 19,755/- and same to be refunded with interest at the rate of 13.5% till realization of entire amount from 14-07-05. The complainant has further contended that he has approached the Respondent several time in this regard but not received any response. Hence he got issued Legal Notice through his Advocate on 27-02-08. In-spite of service of notice Respondent has neither refunded the excess amount of Rs. 19,755/- nor issued the clearance certificate. On the other hand the Respondent tried to attack the complainant with Gundas and also tried to seize the vehicle without any authority of law and also called upon him through notice to make payment of Rs. 20,000/- and odd without mentioning any dates or any installments etc., with heavy cost of Rs. 50,000/-. 7. The Respondent has contended that all the allegations made in the complaint are denied except the transactions held under the Lease Agreement and he further contended that the complainant was not prompt in making the payment of installments. Hence he has to pay the over due charges and so he denied the excess payment as alleged by the complainant. 8. The complainant has filed Loan Proposal Sheet which was given by the Respondent which discloses value of the vehicle finance charges, insurance and among other things which is at Ex.P-1. He has produced (38) Receipts for having paid the monthly installments due to the Respondents on different dates they are at Ex.P-2 to Ex.P-39. The complainant has also produced Legal Notice dt. 27-02-08 issued to the Respondent which is at Ex.P-40, the acknowledgement in-respect of the said notice is at Ex.P-41. In-turn the Respondent has produced (4) documents Ex.R-1 is the Power of Attorney executed by Sri. R.Sridhar Managing Director Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Chennai, in favour of Sunil Sadre Executive Fort Road, Belgaum. Ex.R-2 is Certified Copy of order of Honble High Court of Judicature of Madras in Company Petition No. 191/05 & 192/05 in respect of Amalgamation of Shriram Investment Ltd., with Shri Ram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Ex.R-3 is Original Hire Purchase Agreement dt. 19-10-02 made at Raichur between Respondent Company and complainant. Ex.R-4 is the Computerized Copy of the Statement of Accounts Extract of the complainant Loan Account. 9. After having gone through the pleadings of the parties and documents produced before the Forum, we find that there is no dispute regarding purchase of the vehicle by the complainant under the Hire Purchase Agreement with the financial assistance to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000/- at the rate of 13.5% p.a. interest for the period of (30) months commencing from 15th November 2002 and last i.e, 30th April on 15th April 2005 as detailed at Para 14 of IInd Schedule of Ex.R-3. It is also not disputed by both the parties that repayment of loan amount will come to Rs. 3,64,375/- (for 30 months) if it is paid in-regularly on or before 15th day of every calendar month as detailed in Ex.R-3 at Para-14 of second schedule. The case of the complainant is that he has paid in all Rs. 3,84,130/- instead of Rs. 3,64,375/- as per the agreement which is excess to the tune of Rs. 19,755/-. In the said Ex.R-3 at Para-14 of the Second Schecule it is also clearly mentioned that in-case of default, over due compensation not exceeding the rate of 3% per month shall be payable on the over due Hire Money Installments by the borrower to the Respondent. The complainant has not disputed execution of this Hire Purchase Agreement at Ex.R-3 so he is liable for payment of over due charge. 10. After close perusal of the Ex. P-2 to Ex.P-39 it shows that the complainant was not diligent in making the payment of installments on or before 15th day of each and every calendar month as mentioned in Ex.R-3 at Second Schedule in Para-14 we also find that he has not paid the actual installment amount as agreed by him under Ex.R-3 and that there is an over due in making the payment of installments. Ex.R-4 Computerized Statement of Account Extract produced by Respondent is very much clear about what was the over due on each and every month. According to this Ex.R-4 the total over due by the complainant to the Respondent is Rs. 1,21,470/- as on 31-05-08. If it is the case then the claim of the complainant in-respect of excess payment to the tune of Rs. 19,755/- does not arise. 11. The complainant has also not produced any single piece of evidence to show that he was permitted to repay the loan at un-even dates i.e, any day of the calendar month other than 15th day as mentioned in Second Schedule of Ex.R-3. When the documents of his own and the documents produced by the Respondent clearly speak that the complainant is not prompt in payment of the installments due then he is bound to pay over due charges as per Ex.R-3 referred to above. In these circumstances we cannot hold that the complainant has paid excess amount to the tune of Rs. 19,755/- as contended by him. Hence the claim for refund of excess amount with interest at 13.5% p.a. and other relief as sought by complainant holds no merits. So we do not find out any deficiency or fault on the part of the Respondent Company. So we hold that the complainant has failed to prove the deficiency in service by the Respondent. Hence Point No-1 is answered in the Negative. POINT NO.2 :- 12. In-view of our discussion and finding on Point No-1 holding that the complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service by the Respondent so he is not entitled for reliefs sought for. In the result we pass the following order: ORDER The complaint of the complainant being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed . No order as to cost. Office to furnish certified copy of this order to both the parties forth with free of cost. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 30-09-08) Sd/- Sri. N.H. Savalagi President Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj Member. Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath Member. Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur.

JUDGEMENT By Sri. Gururaj Member:- This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the complainant Mouneshappa against the Respondent Shri Ram Group of company and chits (K) Pvt Ltd., for deficiency in service. The brief facts of the complaint are as under: The complainant has purchased Maxi Cab vehicle bearing No. KA-27/2776 on 19-10-02 under Hire Purchase Agreement for purchase of which Respondent had financed to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000/- with interest at 13.5% p.a. repayable within (30) months even or uneven months. As per proposal sheet issued by the Respondent (30) months anti-dated interest was charged well in advance which come to Rs. 84,375/- which is not permissible under law and regarding the charging of interest is opposed to Public Policy and also Reserve Bank of India Guidelines. The complainant has taken the loan from Respondent at Raichur Branch after opening the branch at Sindhanur it was transferred to Sindhanur as per the directions of the Respondent and rest of the loan installments have been paid at Sindhanur branch. The Respondent has issued the receipts for payment of installments some are not issued he has issued the acknowledgements having received the payments and receipts will be issued after some time. The particulars of loan transactions are as under: i) Principal amount Rs. 2,50,000=00 ii) Anti dated interest for (30) months Rs. 84,375=00 iii) Insurance Rs. 30,000=00 ---------------------------- Rs. 3,64,375=00 iv) Payments made by the complainant Rs.3,84,130=00 (as detailed in Para-8 of the complaint) ------------------------------ Excess amount paid by the complainant. Rs. 19,755=00 ---------------------------- So the Respondent is liable to refund the excess sum of Rs. 19,755/- with interest at 13.5% till realization of entire amount from 14-07-05. The complainant has approached the Respondent several times but he did not receive any response. Left with no other alternative he has caused legal notice of the Respondent through his Advocate on 27-02-08 in-spite of service of legal notice the Respondent has neither made the refund of Rs. 19,755/- nor issued the clearance certificate. It goes to show that Respondent had admitted all the contents of legal notice. The Respondent is high handedly with the assistance of Gundas in the name and style of seizers of the vehicle every now and then attacking on the complainant without any authority of law. Recently the Respondent has called upon the complainant to make payment of Rs. 20,040/- without mentioning any dates or any installments etc., with heavy cost of Rs. 50,000/-. Hence for all these reasons the complainant has sought for direction to make payment of amount of Rs. 19,755/- with interest at 13.5% p.a. from 14-07-05 till realization along with cost of proceedings. For refund of excess interest collected by the Respondent and a penalty be imposed for high handed acts. Further the Respondent be directed to issue clearance certificate to the complainant forthwith. 2. The Respondent in response to service of notice appeared through counsel and filed written version/objection to the complaint as under: The entire contents of the complaint are false and frivolously complainant has availed finance from M/s. Shriram Investments Ltd., by executing Hire Purchase Cum Guarantee Agreement from Raichur Branch. In-view of availment of finance the hypothecation of M/s. Shri. Ram Investments Ltd., is entered in the registration certificate of the vehicle as required U/s. 51 of M.V. Act. This Shri Ram Investment Ltd., is merged with M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., as per the scheme of Amalgamation order passed by the High Court of Madras in Company Petition 191/2005 and 192/2005. These all true facts are well with in the knowledge of the complainant. After having full knowledge of complainant has deliberately not impleaded the proper party. Shriram Chits Ltd., (K) Pvt Ltd., is engaged in the chit business and it is in correct to the present complainant. It has been impleaded wrong with sole intention to harass the Respondent. The complainant has availed loan from M/s. Shriram investment to purchase 2000 Model TATA MAXI CAB Passenger vehicle by executing Hire Purchase Cum Guarantee Agreement on 15-10-02. In-view of availment of loan from M/s. Shriram Investment Ltd., the complainant is borrower of the financial institution and so he is not a consumer within the meaning of section 2 (1) (d) of C.P. Act. Further the loan availed by the complainant is purely for commercial purpose. So he is not a consumer under 2 (1) (d) of C.P. Act. The allegation that as per the proposal sheet issued by Respondent (30) months anti-dated interest was charged well with in advance totaling to Rs. 84,375/- was not permissible under the law and which is opposed to the public policy and the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India are all false and denied. After having executing agreement as the complainant is bound to comply with the terms and bound to pay the amount to the Respondent as per the agreement. According to the clause 3 of Hire Purchase Cum Guarantee Agreement. A punctual payment is essence of the contract. Class 5 & 6 Hire Purchase Agreement states Penalty on over due Hire Purchase Installments. The particulars of repayment as shown in Para- 8 of the complaint are in correct and not in accordance with schedule of the repayment annexed to the agreement. The allegation that this Respondent is high handedly with the assistance of Gundas in the name and style of seizure of the vehicle every now and then is attacking on the complainant without any authority of law etc., are all false. According to the terms and conditions of the agreement the complainant has availed loan and finance charges to be paid by him are as under: i) Amount financed Rs. 2,50,000=00 ii) Finance charges Rs. 84,375=00 iii) Insurance deposit Rs. 30,000=00 ---------------------------- Total amount to be repaid by the complainant Rs. 3,64,375=00 ---------------------------- 15th of every month is a date of repayment of installment. The complainant was not paying regularly 15th day. Therefore as per clause XIV second schedule of the Hire Purchase Cum Guarantee Agreement the complainant has specifically agreed and undertaken that: In case of default over due compensation not exceeding the rate of 3% per month shall be payable on the over due hire money installment. Therefore the complainant is bound to pay over due charges and pre-closure charges. This fact is within the knowledge of the complainant which has been already intimated to the complainant. The total dues payable by the complainant to the Respondent financial institution as on 31-05-08 is Rs. 1,35,812/- with legal expenses. There is no cause of action to the complainant has filed false complaint. Contrary to the terms of the Hire Purchase Cum Guarantee Agreement. The obligation arising out of agreement cannot be questioned by the complainant before this Forum. More over the rights and obligations which are conferred by the terms of the agreement cannot be construed as deficiency for service U/s. 2 (1) (d) of the C.P. Act. Hence for all these reasons the Respondent has sought for dismissal of the complaint with cost of Rs. 25,000/- 3. During the course of enquiry the complainant has filed his sworn affidavit by way of examination-in-chief. The Respondent Company in rebuttal has filed sworn-affidavit of its Senior Manger (Legal) by way of examination-in-chief. On behalf of complainant as many as (41) documents have been got marked at Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-41. On behalf of Respondent (4) documents have been got marked at Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-4. 4. Heard the arguments of counsel for the complainant. The L.C. for the Respondent has filed written version of arguments. Perused the records. The following points arise for our consideration and determination: 1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency in service by the Respondent Company, as alleged. 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief sought for. 5. Our finding on the above points are as under:- 1. In the Negative. 2. As per final order for the following REASONS POINT NO.1 :- 6. It is the case of the complainant that he has purchased Maxi Cab vehicle bearing NO. KA-27/2776 on 19-10-02 under Hire Purchase agreement dt. 19-10-02 for which Respondent had financed to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000/- with interest at 13.5% p.a. payable within (30) months even or uneven months. As per proposal sheet at Ex.P-1 issued by the Respondent (30) Months anti-dated interest was charged well in advance which comes to Rs. 84,375/- which is not permissible under law and against the Public Policy and as well as guidelines of Reserve Bank of India. It is also his case that the Respondent was not issued some of the receipts but issued only acknowledgements for having paid the installments. It is also the case of the complainant that the Respondent has collected excess amount of Rs. 19,755/- and same to be refunded with interest at the rate of 13.5% till realization of entire amount from 14-07-05. The complainant has further contended that he has approached the Respondent several time in this regard but not received any response. Hence he got issued Legal Notice through his Advocate on 27-02-08. In-spite of service of notice Respondent has neither refunded the excess amount of Rs. 19,755/- nor issued the clearance certificate. On the other hand the Respondent tried to attack the complainant with Gundas and also tried to seize the vehicle without any authority of law and also called upon him through notice to make payment of Rs. 20,000/- and odd without mentioning any dates or any installments etc., with heavy cost of Rs. 50,000/-. 7. The Respondent has contended that all the allegations made in the complaint are denied except the transactions held under the Lease Agreement and he further contended that the complainant was not prompt in making the payment of installments. Hence he has to pay the over due charges and so he denied the excess payment as alleged by the complainant. 8. The complainant has filed Loan Proposal Sheet which was given by the Respondent which discloses value of the vehicle finance charges, insurance and among other things which is at Ex.P-1. He has produced (38) Receipts for having paid the monthly installments due to the Respondents on different dates they are at Ex.P-2 to Ex.P-39. The complainant has also produced Legal Notice dt. 27-02-08 issued to the Respondent which is at Ex.P-40, the acknowledgement in-respect of the said notice is at Ex.P-41. In-turn the Respondent has produced (4) documents Ex.R-1 is the Power of Attorney executed by Sri. R.Sridhar Managing Director Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Chennai, in favour of Sunil Sadre Executive Fort Road, Belgaum. Ex.R-2 is Certified Copy of order of Honble High Court of Judicature of Madras in Company Petition No. 191/05 & 192/05 in respect of Amalgamation of Shriram Investment Ltd., with Shri Ram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Ex.R-3 is Original Hire Purchase Agreement dt. 19-10-02 made at Raichur between Respondent Company and complainant. Ex.R-4 is the Computerized Copy of the Statement of Accounts Extract of the complainant Loan Account. 9. After having gone through the pleadings of the parties and documents produced before the Forum, we find that there is no dispute regarding purchase of the vehicle by the complainant under the Hire Purchase Agreement with the financial assistance to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000/- at the rate of 13.5% p.a. interest for the period of (30) months commencing from 15th November 2002 and last i.e, 30th April on 15th April 2005 as detailed at Para 14 of IInd Schedule of Ex.R-3. It is also not disputed by both the parties that repayment of loan amount will come to Rs. 3,64,375/- (for 30 months) if it is paid in-regularly on or before 15th day of every calendar month as detailed in Ex.R-3 at Para-14 of second schedule. The case of the complainant is that he has paid in all Rs. 3,84,130/- instead of Rs. 3,64,375/- as per the agreement which is excess to the tune of Rs. 19,755/-. In the said Ex.R-3 at Para-14 of the Second Schecule it is also clearly mentioned that in-case of default, over due compensation not exceeding the rate of 3% per month shall be payable on the over due Hire Money Installments by the borrower to the Respondent. The complainant has not disputed execution of this Hire Purchase Agreement at Ex.R-3 so he is liable for payment of over due charge. 10. After close perusal of the Ex. P-2 to Ex.P-39 it shows that the complainant was not diligent in making the payment of installments on or before 15th day of each and every calendar month as mentioned in Ex.R-3 at Second Schedule in Para-14 we also find that he has not paid the actual installment amount as agreed by him under Ex.R-3 and that there is an over due in making the payment of installments. Ex.R-4 Computerized Statement of Account Extract produced by Respondent is very much clear about what was the over due on each and every month. According to this Ex.R-4 the total over due by the complainant to the Respondent is Rs. 1,21,470/- as on 31-05-08. If it is the case then the claim of the complainant in-respect of excess payment to the tune of Rs. 19,755/- does not arise. 11. The complainant has also not produced any single piece of evidence to show that he was permitted to repay the loan at un-even dates i.e, any day of the calendar month other than 15th day as mentioned in Second Schedule of Ex.R-3. When the documents of his own and the documents produced by the Respondent clearly speak that the complainant is not prompt in payment of the installments due then he is bound to pay over due charges as per Ex.R-3 referred to above. In these circumstances we cannot hold that the complainant has paid excess amount to the tune of Rs. 19,755/- as contended by him. Hence the claim for refund of excess amount with interest at 13.5% p.a. and other relief as sought by complainant holds no merits. So we do not find out any deficiency or fault on the part of the Respondent Company. So we hold that the complainant has failed to prove the deficiency in service by the Respondent. Hence Point No-1 is answered in the Negative. POINT NO.2 :- 12. In-view of our discussion and finding on Point No-1 holding that the complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service by the Respondent so he is not entitled for reliefs sought for. In the result we pass the following order: ORDER The complaint of the complainant being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed . No order as to cost. Office to furnish certified copy of this order to both the parties forth with free of cost. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 30-09-08) Sd/- Sri. N.H. Savalagi President Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj Member. Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath Member. Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur.