25-08-2015 - The reasons for delay in disposal of this appeal can be seen from the order sheet.

1. Heard the parties.
2. In this appeal a petition was filed for condoning the delay of about four months in filing this appeal, stating as follows:-

“3. That as a matter of fact, the appellants were under impression that the aforesaid order dated 12.04.2012 be not challenged to any appellate forum, however, after perusing the order lateron, it was detected that there is something against the appellants in the order which could be challenged and as such the present appeal.

4. That the office of the appellants after receiving the copy of the order and on its perusal decided to file an appeal before the learned commission and to complete the formalities, a delay occurred.

5. That thereafter the appellants handed over the brief to the counsel in the month of September 2012 and after getting it draft, the present appeal is being filed”.

3. It is true that liberal approach is taken for condoning the delay, but in the present case there is no satisfactory explanation at all for condonation the long delay of about four months in filing this appeal. The said statements are absolutely vague, general and sweeping.
4. On merits, the following position emerges. The Respondent-complainant filed the present case for refraining the O.P. – appellant (financer for short) from repossessing the financed vehicle and accepting the fair amount against the loan after waving the amount of over due charges (O.D.C.) i.e. Rs. 1,41,632/- and other penal charges imposed by the financer on the complainant. He also claimed compensation of Rs. 50,000/-.

According to the complainant, he purchased the vehicle in question under hire purchase agreement, exclusively with the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. He could not pay some of the last installments within the stipulated period for which the financer served a legal notice dated 18.01.2011 on the complainant for payment of Rs. 70,900/- towards the loan for the period upto January, 2011. The complainant paid Rs. 15,000/- on 31.03.2011 but in the meantime he was asked by the financer to pay Rs. 2,91,456/- in one go, which included Rs. 1,41,632/- as O.D.C. and Rs. 1,988/- as interest. Then the complainant served legal notice dated 16.06.2011 for exempting the O.D.C. amount and other illegal charges so that he could pay the loan amount in one go. The financer did not reply to the legal notice and threatened to repossess the vehicle, and therefore the complainant filed the present complaint case.

5. According to the financer, the complainant was not a consumer and moreover he failed, neglected and refused to make the payment of the installments within the stipulated time and therefore was liable to pay the O.D.C. charges etc.
6. It appears that the financer served a legal notice dated 18.01.2011 on the complainant for payment of an outstanding arrear of Rs. 70,902 towards dues, occurred on account of delayed payment of EMI installments of loan, along with O.D.C., but the financer did not communicate the actual amount of O.D.C. nor any calculation chart was furnished to justify, such demand. From the legal notice sent on behalf of the complainant, it appears that he had already paid Rs. 2,49,977 to the financer against the loan of Rs. 2,98,545/-. It also appears that the complainant went to the office of financer for depositing Rs. 70,902/-. In the meantime, he deposited Rs. 15,000/- with the financer on 31.03.2011. Even then the financer asked him to pay Rs. 2,91,456/- in one go, which included O.D.C charges of Rs. 1,41,632/- and that too without any notice to the complainant.
7. The learned District Forum rightly held that the complainant was consumer.
8. The operative portion on the impugned order read as follows:

“9. From the facts and materials submitted by the  parties, we draw the inference that the complainant was ready to pay the arrear amount of the due installments which he could not pay earlier on time due to certain hurdles i.e. major break down of the financed vehicle and heart problem of the complainant, which should have been accepted by the opposite party without any objection and so far as the payment of over dues charges (O.D.C.) is concerned, no details of such demand or any calculation chart has been furnished by the opposite party to convince this Forum about Rs. 1,41,632/- demanded as O.D.C. from the complainant. Therefore, we direct the opposite party to re-calculate the  arrear of due installments to be paid by the complainant along with a simple interest of 9% P.A. after deducting the amount already paid by the complainant and communicate it to the complainant within one month from the date of this order and the complainant is directed to pay the amount calculated by the opposite party in light of the above order within a period of two months from the date of this order to the opposite party without fail”.

9. We find that no grounds are made out for interfering with the impugned judgment. In the result, this appeal is dismissed on the ground of limitation as well as on merits.

Issue free copy of this order to all concerned for information and needful.

Ranchi,

Dated:- 25-08-2015