Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member
This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 01/07/2010, Shri Manoj Madhukar Jagushte V/s. Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., passed by District Forum, Ratnagiri.
2. The consumer complaint is for recovery of `15,575/- which the complainant paid in excess than what was due to the appellant/opponent-Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘Finance Company’) from whom he had taken a loan to purchase a goods truck. District Forum partly allowed the complaint and directed the Finance Company to refund `15,664/- to the complainant and also to issue him No Dues Certificate, further directed to pay `5,000/- as compensation for mental torture and to comply the direction by 01/08/2010 and if not, to pay interest over the amount @ 12% p.a. Feeling aggrieved by such order, Finance Company preferred this appeal.
3. Undisputed facts are that to purchase a goods truck, a loan was taken from the Finance Company by the respondent/complainant. He had repaid the entire loan by December 2005. He further alleged that during period December 2005 to 16/11/2009 he had paid in all `2,64,000/- to the Finance Company but they had not closed the loan account. On 16/11/2009 complainant had further paid `12,000/- and when asked for statement of his loan account, he was asked by Finance Company to come in the next week. But when on 24/11/2009 he had contacted the Finance Company, he was informed that `46,000/- were due from him and also further informed to him that if he wants full and final settlement of his loan account, he will be required to pay `1,20,000/-. A notice was also received from the Finance Company by the complainant dated 31/12/2009 asking him to deposit then due amount of `37,832/-. Thereafter, alleging that he had paid in excess `15,575/- the consumer complaint was filed on 30/01/2010 inter alia claiming relief for refund of `15,575/-, claiming compensation of `10,000/- towards mental torture and `5,000/- as costs.
4. Finance Company opposed the complaint stating that the consumer complaint for refund of money is not tenable. It further pointed out that on 28/02/2007 `54,403/- were due from the complainant and therefore, when in the month of February 2007, the matter was entrusted to the Recovery Officer for recovery, complainant sought readjustment of his loan. Accordingly, additional loan of `1,30,000/- was given to the complainant as per agreement dated 28/02/2007 and repayment schedule was redrafted and as per the same, entire loan amount including insurance deposit was required to be repaid in 35 monthly installments i.e. `5,909/- for 34 installments and last installment is `5,917/-. The complainant is a defaulter and `47,803/- plus interest and other charges were due from the complainant.
5. It is not a case in any way covered by unfair trade practice within meaning of Section 2(1)(r) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (‘the Act’ for brevity). Complainant had taken a loan to purchase a goods truck which thereafter was renewed as per fresh agreement dated 28/02/2007. The complainant has suppressed this fact. As per reschedule, according to the Finance Company, `47,803/- were due from the complainant which the complainant failed to pay and hence was defaulter at the relevant time. Thus, if at all, it would be a case for taking the accounts or settling the accounts of loan of the complainant, and as such it cannot be a consumer dispute. District Forum did not consider this vital aspect and arrived at a wrong conclusion. Furthermore, a direction given as per the impugned order to issue No Dues Certificate is the one contrary to the reliefs claimed. No such relief was claimed by the complainant, but such direction was given. Thus, we find the impugned order will not sustain in the eyes of law. We hold accordingly and pass the following order :-
-: ORDER :-
1. Appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 01/07/2010 is set aside and in the result, consumer complaint No.07/2010 stands dismissed.
2. In the given circumstances, both parties to bear their own costs.
3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced
Dated 11th July 2013.
