It is alleged by the complainant that on 1.2.2007 ,she had obtained an auto loan from the OP in the sum of Rs.1,56,000/- which was to be repaid in monthly installments along with interest @ 12% p.a. She had made payment of nine EMIs regularly but could not make payment of the remaining EMIs due to financial constrains. On 10.3.2008, the OP had levied interest @ 18% p.a. on the remaining amount where upon she had agreed to pay the balance within a period of 2 ½ years. The complainant has alleged that till 2nd July 2010 ,she has paid a sum of Rs. 4,32,730/- and has cleared all the dues against the aforesaid loan but the OP had refused to issue an NOC in her favour. Hence, the complaint.
The OP has contested the complaint and has filed a written statement. It has denied any deficiency in service and has claimed that the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Para 3 of the preliminary objections of the written statement is relevant and is reproduced as under:
3.
The OP has contested the complaint on merits and has reiterated that the complainant has concealed material facts and further that a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was still due from her against the loan taken by her. The OP has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
We have heard arguments advanced at the bar and have perused the record.
Both the parties have filed their respective affidavits wherein they have corroborated their respective stands as taken in the complaint/ written statement.
A complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act is adjudicated on the basis of the affidavits filed on record and the documents relied upon by the parties. A summary mode has been prescribed for the adjudication of these complaints. Where, however, there are questions of facts which require adjudication by means of elaborate evidence on both sides including the cross examination of the witnesses, the appropriate forum is a Civil Court and not this forum. This forum in its summary jurisdiction cannot undertake to record evidence of the witnesses on both sides including a detailed cross examination so as to determine questions of fact where the parties are at variance with each other. The present case is one where such a procedure is required to be undergone. Coming to the facts of the case in hand , it may be stated that neither party has placed on record any document such as the loan agreement / hire purchase agreement under which the amount of laon was availed of by the complainant. The parties at variance as regards the amount of loan availed of and the terms of the same including the rate of interest. Whereas, as per the complainant , she had availed of the auto loan in the sum of Rs. 1,56,000/-, the OP contends that the complainant was provided with a loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- only. The complainant claims that the loan was advanced at an interest rate of 12 % p.a. which was unilaterally and illegally increased to Rs 18% p.a. The OP has not given the rate of interest at which the loan had been sanctioned. All these questions need to be determined after evidence is led on both sides and the witnesses are put to cross –examination. This forum in its summary mode of trial cannot determine these questions. We , therefore, hold that the present complaint is not maintainable in this forum and the same is liable to be dismissed. The complainant, however, might take recourse to the legal remedy available to him before a different forum such as the Civil Court etc. The complaint is hereby dismissed.
