No. 5/21.03.2011.
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI PRABIR KUMAR SAMANTA, PRESIDENT.
Appellant is present through Ld. Advocate Mr. S. Roychowdhury. Respondents are absent on calls.
O.P. No. 1 – Financier has come up in this appeal against the judgement and order dated 31.05.2010 passed in CC Case No. 67/2009 by the Forum below.
Evidently the Complainant purchased two vehicles by taking financial assistance from the said O.P. – Financier. It is not in dispute that a total sum of Rs.2,48,875/- was advanced to the Complainant by the said Financier which as per the terms of the agreement between the parties were to be paid by 35 number of Equal Monthly Installment (EMI). The Complainant made payment of the said EMIs in time but most unfortunately there was shortfall of a meagre amount of Rs.3,200/- only in the payment of the last EMI. Interestingly although the last payment was due on 05.05.2006 but the Complainant made such payment much earlier on 24.03.2006. In this state of affairs, for the aforesaid shortfall of Rs.3,200/- the said O.P. – Financier demanded from the Complainant a sum of Rs.1,25,781/- by sending a Statement of Accounts dated 28.02.2009 to the Complainant. The said amount was demanded from him by charging interest of a sum of Rs.1,28,581/- on the aforesaid shortfall of Rs.3,200/-. It was alleged that such interest was charged as per the hire purchase agreement between the parties. Hence the complaint case.
The said case has been decided by the Forum below by directing the Complainant to make payment to the O.P. No. 1 of the aforesaid amount of Rs.3,200/- along with interest @ 8% p.a. from 6th May, 2006 till the date of payment. The Forum below has set aside the demand of the said sum of Rs.1,28,581/- on the ground that interest charged on the aforesaid amount was exorbitantly high and further the demand of such amount of interest was not in accordance with the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India. The statement of accounts as produced along with the complaint case and not denied by the O.P. No. 1 has revealed that the last payment of EMI for an amount of Rs.6,600/- was due on 05.05.2006. The Complainant paid Rs.3,400/- on 24.03.2006. Thus there was a shortfall of Rs.3,200/- only in respect of the said last EMI. The O.P. – Financier instead of intimating to the Complainant about such less payment immediately thereafter and demanding payment thereof within the due date kept silent for about three years and forwarded the statement of account after a lapse of about three years demanding late payment charges of Rs.1,28,581/- on the aforesaid amount of Rs.3,200/- only. The said statement also did not disclose at what rate the interest was charged on the said shortfall and the exact amount charged by way of penalty on the said shortfall and the basis thereof. Furthermore, the O.P. – Financier has also not produced any document to establish that he was entitled in law to charge as such on the basis of any licence or authority given by the Reserve Bank of India. The penal charges and/or interest as charged by the O.P. – Financier on the aforesaid meagre amount of Rs.3,200/- being absolutely unconscionable and furthermore there being no material to show that the same was charged legitimately by the O.P. – Financier we are of the view that it is clear case of unfair trade practice. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgement and order passed by the District Forum below merely because of the agreement between the parties. The impugned judgement and order of the Forum below is thus affirmed. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
