BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Rajpreet Kaur, s/o S.Harpal Singh Sidhu, c/o #1178, Phase 9. Mohali, 9888211789

…..Complainant

                           V E R S U S

Sundaram Finance Ltd, Branch Office at S.C.O. 11, First Floor, Sector 26-D, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh, Phone – 017-2792881,2792882

                                  ……Opposite Party

CORAM:  SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL        PRESIDENT

              DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL       MEMBER

              SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL   MEMBER

Argued by: Sh.Tejwinder Singh Hundal, Adv. for complainant.

Sh. Vishal Gupta, Adv. for OP.

PER SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

             Succinctly put, the complainant purchased a car in Jan, 2002, which was got financed from the OP. The complainant gave advance cheques to the OP towards the payment of loan taken through finance for the said car. As per the statement of account, all the cheques had been honoured by the banker of the complainant to the OP and the last installment was credited to the accounts of the OP on 10.12.06. The complainant stated that time and again she approached the OP to issue the N.O.C. for the said car, to get the car registered in her name but the OP had not issued the said N.O.C. to her till date.  Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OP amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.             Notice was served to the OP. In their written reply the Learned Counsel for the OP submitted that as per clause 2 of the HP Agreement it was agreed by the complainant/hirer that in the event of any delayed payment, the OP was entitled to charge an additional interest on the entire such outstanding amount, whether of loan, interest or any other charges payable and the additional charge would not affect the obligation of strict compliance with repayment schedule which was an essential condition for the grant of loan.  The complainant was liable to pay the monthly installments on due dates mentioned in the schedule of the said agreement but on couple of occasions the cheques issued by the complainant were returned by his banker on ground of insufficiency of funds and therefore the installments could not be deposited by the complainant on due dates, which had resulted in accumulation of additional interest in the contract. Despite various demand and repeated requests, the complainant had failed to clear the additional interest accrued under the contract and that is why NOC was not issued to the complainant. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant, the OP pleaded that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

3.             The complainant led evidence in support of her contention.

4.             We have heard the Learned Counsel for the complainant and have also perused the record. 

5.             As per the schedule of payment Annexure C-1, the complainant was required to make the payment of installments by 10^th of every month.  The complainant has placed on file the receipts which show that the payments were made on 14.01.2002, 11.02.2004, 22.03.2004, 13.09.2004, 17.01.2006, 30.08.2006 etc. meaning thereby that the payment of number of installments was delayed by the complainant and those were not paid on due dates.  The contention of the OP is that when the payment was delayed or it was not paid on due dates, they were entitled to late payment charges and interest on the amount which was delayed by the complainant. The OP has produced the loan agreement dated 21.01.2002 in this respect. According to the OP now a sum of Rs.772/- was due from the complainant as is clear from the statement of account Annexure R-1. The said amount has not been paid by the complainant and he is therefore a defaulter.  Unless the entire amount is paid by the complainant he is not entitled to No Objection Certificate.  If the OP did not issue N.O.C., there is no deficiency in service on its part.

6.             The Learned Counsel for the OP has referred to case “Ram Deshlahara Vs. Magma Leading Ltd, III (2006) CPJ 247 (NC)” in view of which a financier who advanced money under hire-purchase does not render any service within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act.  In the present case also the hire-purchase was entered into between the parties.  The OP therefore cannot be said to be liable to render any service and consumer complaint would not be maintainable.

7.             In case “Om Prakash Bishnoi Vs. Ashoka Leyland Finance Ltd., Appeal No. 1835 of 2003” decided by Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 10.10.2005, it was held that when a complainant commits breach of a hire purchase contract by committing defaults in payment of equated monthly instalments in terms of that contract, and pursuant to that subsisting contract between the parties, an act is done by the opposite party the complainant cannot seek the remedy of the Consumer Forum. It was held that the complainant cannot get over the terms of the hire purchase agreement by merely labeling the act of the opposite party as deficiency in service and resort to the Consumer Forum.

8.             As discussed above in the present case also the installments having not been paid by the due dates, the complainant was a defaulter and he committed the breach of the terms of the agreement and therefore he cannot knock at the doors of the Consumer Forum.

9.             In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and there is no merit in this complaint.  The complaint is accordingly dismissed.

10.           It is however made clear that after the full amount is deposited by the complainant, the OP is under an obligation to issue N.O.C. of the car in the name of the complainant.

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.