DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Sachin Mehra son of Late Sh.A.K.Mehra, 151, Himshikha, Pinjore, Tehsil Kalka, District Panchkula.

…..Complainant

                                      V E R S U S

1.       Tata Motor Finance Ltd., Chandigarh Branch, SCO No.449-450, IInd floor, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh, through its Br.Manager.

2.       Tata Motor Finance Ltd. a company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, having its office at Building-A, IInd floor, Lodha I-Think Techno Campus, Off. Pokharan Road 2, Thane (West)       400 607.

……Opposite Parties

QUORUM:   P.L.AHUJA                                                  PRESIDENT

                   RAJINDER SINGH GILL                                MEMBER

                   DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA         MEMBER

Argued by: Sh.S.C.Sharma, Counsel for complainant.

                     Sh.Y.P.Singh, Counsel for OPs.

PER P.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT

1.                Sh.Sachin Mehra, complainant has filed this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Tata Motor Finance Ltd. & Anr. - Opposite Parties (hereinafter called the OPs), alleging that  he was financed a sum of Rs.2,10,000/- for purchasing of Tata Ace vehicle bearing registration No.HR-49-F-0461 for personal use. The said financed amount was to be paid in 47 monthly installments @ Rs.6360/-, which was payable on 21^st day of each succeeding calendar month. The first installment of Rs.6360/- was to be paid on 21.11.2007. According to the complainant, he paid all the due installments including the last installment on 21.9.2011 but due to some financial difficulties he could not pay seven installments in time, as per schedule as detailed in para No.3 of the complaint. The complainant made several requests for issuance of No Due Certificate in respect of financed vehicle to OP No.1. He also received a legal notice dated 18.1.2012 whereby the OPs made a demand of Rs.17,083/- on account of penalty over the delayed installments. The complainant then again received another legal notice dated 21.4.2012 whereby a sum of Rs.33,172/- was demanded as delayed payment charges @36% p.a. on unpaid amount. The complainant has contended that the OPs are harassing him and charging the interest illegally @36% p.a. over the delayed payment, which is not in his knowledge. It has been further contended that at the time of hypothecation of the vehicle, no copy of agreement was supplied to him, which is totally unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. The complainant has made a prayer for a direction to the OPs to issue the No Due Certificate and to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and Rs.11,000/- towards litigation charges.

2.                In their written statement, the OPs have pleaded that the dispute between the parties is a matter of contract and unless it is shown that the contract is unconscionable or opposed to public policy, there is no scope of interference by this Forum and the remedy of the complainant is to seek the assistance of Civil Court. It has been further pleaded that the complainant had availed the loan for the vehicle in question used for commercial purposes and he is not a consumer. The relationship between the complainant and the OPs is that of debtor and the lender and he is not a consumer. It has been further submitted that the complainant is a regular defaulter in making the timely payment of installments. According to the computer generated statement of account, OPs have to recover Rs.37081.45 due and outstanding against the complainant as on 26.9.2012, therefore, he is not entitled to obtain No Objection Certificate. It has been further stated that as per Clause 23 of the agreement executed between the parties, all the disputes arising out of loan agreement shall be settled by arbitration to be held at Mumbai and the award of the arbitrator shall be final and binding on all parties concerned. It has been stated that the OPs had agreed to provide the finance facility of Rs.2,10,000/- according to Loan cum Hypothecation cum Guarantee Agreement No.5000179759 dated 24.10.2007, which is Annexure R-1. The term of the agreement was for a period of 4 years and the complainant had agreed to repay the loan amount along with Rs.65,920/- towards finance charges, Rs.23,000/- towards insurance,  amounting the total contract value of Rs.2,98,920/- to be paid in 47 equated monthly installments. The copies of the computer generated statements of account are marked as Annexures R-2, R-3 and R-4. It has been further stated that the complainant has been regular defaulter in his payments and in total 1558 days delay was done by him during his repayment tenure and yet his entire sum has not been cleared off. It has been stated that the complainant cannot be issued the NOC unless he takes the trouble to clear off the amount of Rs.37081.45.

3.                The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4.                We have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the parties.

5.                It is the admitted case of the parties that the complainant was financed a sum of Rs.2,10,000/- for purchasing Tata Ace vehicle bearing registration No.HR-49-F-0461 by OP No.1 but as per letter dated 30.10.2007, available at page No.10 of the file, the total amount aggregated to Rs.2,98,920/- (including finance charges and insurance). The complainant was to make payment of 47 monthly installments @ Rs.6360/-. According to the complainant, he could not pay the seven installments in time as per schedule for which, the details are given as below :-

However, according to the OPs, the complainant has been a regular defaulter in his payments and in total a 1558 days delay was done by him during his repayment tenure and an amount of Rs.37081.45 as on 26.9.2012 is outstanding against him. The OPs have produced the Statements of Accounts – Annexure R-2, R-3 and R-4 show that an amount of Rs.37081.45 was outstanding against the complainant as on 26.9.2012. In regard to the contention of the complainant that there was no agreement of interest @36% p.a., the OPs have produced Annexure-1 attached to the Loan cum Hypothecation cum Guarantee Agreement – Annexure R-1, which shows that delayed payment charges were agreed to be paid @36% p.a. and the said Annexure was signed by the complainant at two places. A perusal of the agreement shows that its each page is signed by the complainant, therefore, at this juncture the contention of the complainant that no copy of the agreement was supplied to him cannot be accepted. The vehicle of the complainant was financed as far back as on 24.10.2007 by the complainant for which an intimation was sent to him on 30.10.2007. Now after about five years, the complainant cannot contend that the condition of the interest @36% p.a. was not in his knowledge and no copy of the agreement was supplied to him. On the basis of the documents on record, we feel that the complainant is bound by the agreement and the OPs are entitled to recover the balance amount as per terms and conditions of the agreement. Hence, if the OPs have not issued any NOC to the complainant, no deficiency in service can be attributed to them. Otherwise also, we feel that if the complainant alleges that he has been regularly making the payment and the amount of Rs.37081.45 as intimated to him vide letter dated 21.4.2012, available at page No.15 of the documents filed by the complainant, is excessive then the dispute involves scrutiny of the accounts of both the parties for which, detailed evidence is necessary and the dispute cannot be adjudicated by way of summary procedure by this Forum. At any rate, the complainant has failed to prove any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of OPs in this case.

6.                For the reasons recorded above, we do not find any merit in the complaint and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

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