J U D G E M E N T

Sri Biswanath De, Ld. President.

The complainant’s case in brief is that he purchased a vehicle after taking loan from the OP No.1/Company, and OP No.2 is the Siliguri Branch of OP No.1.  The cost of the vehicle was Rs.24,70,000/-.  The complainant made down payment of Rs.3,71,000/- and loan amount was Rs.20,99,000/-.  The complainant had to make payment of Rs.27,33,329/- including all cost, charges, interest and expenses of the OPs for financing the vehicle of the complainant.  After purchase, the complainant used the vehicle as per agreement the entire financed amount was required to be paid by the complainant with 05.11.2015.  But the complainant was unable to make the payment of all EMI till 19.01.2013.  The complainant requested the OPs in the

Contd…….P/2

-:2:-

last week of February, 2014 with humble prayer to extend the period of finance to reduce the monthly EMI to Rs.25,000/-.  But the OP No.2 did not hear the complainant and threatened the complainant to take possession of the vehicle for rest amount the loan i.e., for making entire pending EMI.  Accordingly, the complainant was unable to make the payment and approached before this Forum with the prayer for making payment of Rs.14,31,294/- vide para 17 of complaint and other prayers.  

Accordingly, as per complainant’s own statement at the time of filing this case the amount due was Rs.14,31,294/-.     

The OPs have appeared and filed written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations as raised by the complainant.  The complainant is a habitual defaulter in payment of EMI following hypothecation of the said vehicle with the OPs and the OPs are at liberty to enforce their right following such default as per Loan Agreement pertaining to the hypothecation of the said vehicle with the OPs.  The OPs never created undue pressure upon the complainant for recovery of the pending EMI.  The complainant is not a consumer as he has invested money for commercial purposes.  The Insurance Company paid OPs Rs.12,48,500/- as per hypothecation rule.  The OPs have deducted Rs.9,26,500/- on account of EMI to be paid to OPs by the complainant following hypothecation of the said vehicle with the OP.  The complainant did not act as per Arbitration Clause as laid down in The Arbitration Act and Conciliation Act, 1966.  Accordingly, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief.             

Points for decision

1.       Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs ?

2.       Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?     

Decision with reason

It is admitted position that complainant took loan from the OPs and the total loan amount still is not paid and as per para 17 of the complaint the OP is entitled to get Rs.14,31,294/-.  In the complaint it is not mentioned by the complainant regarding payment to the OP.  In the evidence-in-chief, filed by the complainant in para 28 admitted that as per calculation only a sum of Rs.14,31,294/- is due and payable by him i.e., it is own version of the complainant that as per agreement executed by him he did not pay the total due. 

Contd…….P/3

-:3:-

The OP has also filed evidence in accordance with their written averments and the OP files written notes of argument.  Whereas complainant has also filed written notes of argument wherein he has stated that the amount stated in para 24 of written notes of argument is due which had been stated in para 17 of the complaint, which shows that even after getting interim order on 31.07.2014, the complainant did not take any initiative for clearing his dues to the OPs.    

Therefore, as per complaint, and evidence of complainant and evidence and written version of OPs, and written notes of argument, this Forum makes calculation that complainant is not entitled to get any relief as loan amount has not been paid by him. 

So, the materials on record inspire confidence in the mind of the Forum that the complainant’s case is devoid of any merit.  As such the case is liable to be dismissed.     

Hence, it is 

                     O R D E R E D

that the Consumer Case No.23/S/2014 is dismissed on contest against the OPs but without any cost.

Let copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.

 -Member-                       -Member-                           -President-