SMT.K.G.BEENA, MEMBER

             The case of the complainant is as follows:

            Complainant purchased a “TATA Sumo Grande from opposite party for  Rs.7,38,999/- on 25-11-2010 with a regular EMI payment cycle on the 15^th of every month, commences on 15-12-2010.  Complainant made the payments as proposed by the agents of opposite party.  Yet they considered him as a defaulter and charged penalty on payments.  Another allegation against opposite party by the complainant is that the company had published an offer of reduction of Rs.15,000/- on the total value of the vehicle.  Opposite party promised to the complainant that he will recover the amount within a month, but was not recovered yet.

2.         Opposite party filed version stating that the present complaint is an abuse of process of law and is not maintainable.  The averments made therein are vague baseless and with malafide intent complainant in this case is a chronic defaulter of instalments.  Complainant has deposited post dated cheques with  this opposite party towards the repayment of the loan instalments, have been regularly dishonoured due to insufficient funds maintained in the bank account of the complainant.

3.         The complainant filed proof affidavit and Exts A1 to A12 marked on his side.  Opposite party had neither oral nor documentary evidence.  Heard the complainant and learned counsel of opposite party. 

4.         The points that arose for consideration are:

1.    Whether there is deficiency in service on the opposite party?

2.    Whether the complainant is entitled for compensation?

5.            Points 1 & 2       Admittedly the complainant purchased the car with the financial aid of opposite party on 25-11-2010 for Rs.4,50,000/- and was instructed to repay 17,971/- for Ist months instalment and thereafter Rs.16,950/- per month for instalment No.13 to 24, Rs.10,540/- per month for instalment Nos 25 to 36 and thereafter Rs.4,550/- per month for instalment No.37 to 48 from 25-11-2010 to 15-10-2014.  It is intimated to the complainant by opposite party through a letter on December 2, 2010 that his EMI payment cycle is on the 15^th of very month commences on 15-12-2010 and the instalment pattern of his loan account is one advance instalment  and 47 Regular instalments.  Complainant produced documents Exts A1 to A12 insupport of his case which are marked as Exts A1 to A12 respectively. Ext.A1 produced by the complainant proves that complainant has made advance payment in the beginning of every month and he cannot be treated as a defaulter. Ext.A7 also proves that he has sufficient money in his account during the period 1-11-2010 to 11-07-2012.  The contentions raised by the opposite party against the complainant is without any basis.  

6.         Another contention raised by the opposite party against complainant is that the present complaint is bade for non-joinder of parties, as TATA Motors who are the seller of the vehicle has to be impleaded.  It is clear that complainant has no dispute with them and hence it is not necessary to implead  them as opposite party.

7.         Exts.A8, A10 are clear evidences for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party.

8.         While perusing the documents produced by the complainant, we are of the opinion that, opposite party is failed to convince the complainant, which is the date of repayment?  The opposite party had brought the  issue of delayed payments  to  the complainant only after clearing the initial two or three payments as the vehicle was delivered to him on 26^th November 2010, the invoice date is the date of initial payment according to opposite party.  According to the complainant, he is regular in making payments, but the opposite party is charging fine on   EMI.  It is the duty of opposite party to make clear about repayments. As per Ext.A12, opposite party had collected an excess amount of Rs.13,850/- from the complainant as fine charges. That amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.  So the complainant is entitled for compensation.  The act of opposite party caused mental agony to the complainant.  The complainant was not a defaulter. He was regular in making payments. 

            In the result, complaint is partly allowed and opposite party is directed to adjust the fine charges collected from the complainant  i.e Rs.13,850/- to the future payment.  The opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2000/- as cost of the proceedings.  If opposite party failed to adjust Rs.13,850/-  to the future payment of complainant, it  will carry interest @ 9% from the date of complaint  till adjusting to EMI of complainant. Time for compliance is 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

 MEMBER                                                                                                                  PRESIDENT

Exts.

A1. Photocopy of PDC List for contract No.5000620250

A2. Photocopy of First Information Sheet.

A3. 30-09-2011 photocopy of letter

A4. 31-03-2012 photocopy of letter

A5. Photocopy of letter

A6.  Dt.28-11-2011 Photocopy of receipt

A7. Photocopy of Statement of Account from 1-11-10 to 11-7-12

A8. Letter sent by complainant to OP.

A9. Photocopy of SMS Grande-TD.

A10. Letter sent by OP to complainant.

A.11 Photocopy of TATA Motors Finance Ltd Cardex I (Contract Details)

A.12 Photocopy of Expense Receipt details

MEMBER                                                                                                            PRESIDENT

Pj/