Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the Order dated 17-07-2013 of the Ld. District Forum, North 24 Parganas in C.C. No. 104/2013, M/s Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. has preferred this Appeal.

Brief facts of the complaint case are that he purchased a Truck bearing registration no. WB-25B-0776 with the financial assistance of the OPs.  Allegedly, the OPs did not supply him any copy of the Loan-cum-Hypothecation Agreement.  However, he paid the EMIs as per terms and conditions of the Loan Agreement.  In this fashion, he repaid the entire loan.  However, with a mala fide intention, the OPs did not show two payments amounting to Rs. 39,219/- and Rs. 781/- being paid on 25-07-2009 and instead showed some false and frivolous overdue amounts in their statement of account.  Also, despite receiving insurance premium from the Complainant, the OPs have not supplied any policy paper.  When the Complainant sought for No Objection Certificate from the OPs, the latter threatened him with dire consequences.  So, the complaint.

By submitting a WV, the OPs disputed all the material allegations of the complaint.  It is stated by the OPs that the Complainant is a chronic defaulter for which OPs had to issue notice after notice on numerous occasions.  Yet, the Complainant did not mend his way causing great financial loss to the OPs.  It is stated that all the insurance policies have been duly sent to the Complainant in time.  Denying any laches on their part, these OPs prayed for dismissal of the case.

Decision with reasons

Having heard the Ld. Advocates of both sides and on due perusal of the documents on record, I notice several inconsistencies in respect of the claims of the Respondent.

First of all, it is claimed by the Respondent that he had scrupulously followed the payment schedule and repaid the entire loan.  Unfortunately, the money receipts concerned are not forthcoming before me to ascertain the veracity of such claim.  Instead, on going through the documents on record, I come across several demand notices being issued from the side of the Appellants over non-adherence of payment schedules by the Respondents.  Incidentally, the Respondent has not disputed the authenticity of said notices in specific terms.

Secondly, it is claimed by the Respondent that although insurance premiums were realized from him, he was not supplied with insurance policies by the Appellant.  Here too, I find that the Respondent has not furnished any documentary proof to show that he raised such issue with the Appellants.  At the same time, it is also quite intriguing the vehicle in question plied on road sans insurance papers for years together.

Thirdly, it is alleged that the Appellants have shown some false and frivolous overdue amount in their statements.  However, it is indeed perplexing that he has not pointed out the specific grey areas in the Statement of Accounts, where, according to him, the Appellants went wrong.  Given that the Respondent defaulted making payment of EMIs on several occasions,  the Appellants were well within their legal right to impose overdue charges as mandated under the Loan-cum-Hypothecation Agreement executed in between the parties. 

Fourthly, it is contended by the Respondent that the Appellants have not shown receipts of two payments made by him for an amount of Rs. 40,000/- which he claimed to have paid on 25-07-2009.  Most surprisingly, money receipts thereof have not been filed to substantiate such claim. 

Thus, on a thoughtful consideration of the allegations of the Respondent, hardly any substance is found into it.  On a reference to the impugned order, I find that the Ld. District Forum observed that the Respondent did not pay insurance premiums, viz., Rs. 13,455/-, Rs. 13,055/-, Rs. 12,521/- and Rs. 15,402/-, i.e., Rs. 54,433/-.  Despite this, the Ld. District Forum fixed the liability of the Respondent at Rs. 52,167/-.  In the process, the Ld. District Forum also disregarded its own observation that due to non-payment of EMIs in time and dishonor of EMI cheques, the Appellants assessed some additional charges, implying that the said charge was in anyway payable to the Appellants.  In view of such defects, the impugned Order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

In the net, the Appeal succeeds.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

That FA/1000/2013 be and the same is allowed on contest.  The impugned order is here set aside.  Parties do bear their respective costs.