DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Naresh Kumar son of Sh. Mangat ram resident of House No.245, Sector 16, Panchkula.

                                      ---Complainant.

Versus

1.                 Tata Motors Limited, through its Director, SCO No.139-140, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh

2.                 Tata Motor Finance (Finance Department of Tata Motor Limited) SCO No.139-140, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh through its Director Branch Head.

---Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:  SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA, PRESIDING MEMBER

                   SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

Argued by:  Sh. Deepak Aggarwal, Counsel for the complainant

                        Sh. Vikas Kumar, Counsel for the OPs

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.                           The complainant had got a Tata Indigo LS (diesel) car financed from the opposite parties. The total price of the car was Rs.4,85,005/- against which the complainant made a down payment of Rs.96,005/-.  The balance amount of Rs.3,89,000/- was financed by the opposite parties.  The loan was to be paid in 60 EMIs as per the repayment schedule (C-2). The first EMI due on 17.3.2006 was taken by the opposite parties in cash.  After that, advance yearly cheques were taken by the opposite parties from the complainant from time to time.  The complainant has stated that the cheques were presented for payment by the opposite parties at their sweet will for encashment.  No cheque was ever dishonoured. 

                   The complainant has alleged that sometimes the opposite parties were negligent in collecting advance yearly cheques due to which the payment of EMI was collected in cash e.g. the 50^th EMI due on 21.4.2010 was collected on 23.4.2010 in cash vide receipt (C-3). The complainant cleared the entire loan amount including interest as per statement (C-4).  After repayment of the loan, the complainant requested the opposite parties for issuance of NOC.  However, the NOC was denied by the opposite parties vide their letter dated 14.9.2011 (C-5) by stating that Rs.27,482/- was still outstanding against the loan.  After much deliberation between the parties, the account has still remained unsettled. 

The complainant has thus filed the present complaint with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to issue the NOC as also for quashing the demand of Rs.27,482/- besides compensation and costs of litigation.

2.                           Notice of the complaint was sent to the opposite parties.  Opposite parties No.1 & 2 have filed their joint reply by placing reliance on settled law to the effect that where there is a contract between the parties, both the parties are bound by the terms and conditions stipulated therein.   All allegations contained in the complaint have been denied.  It has been submitted that the opposite parties are entitled to recover the dues under the loan agreement.  Also the complainant is a regular defaulter.  As per the statement of account, Rs.33,906.81 stands due and outstanding as on 29.9.2012 and the complainant has failed to clear this amount.  Accordingly, the complainant is not entitled to NOC till this amount is cleared.  The opposite parties have maintained that as per clause 23 of the agreement executed between the parties, any dispute between the parties should be referred to arbitration.  On merits, the issuance of loan of Rs.3,89,000/- under agreement No.20951067 dated 17.3.2006 has been admitted. The complainant had agreed to pay the loan amount alongwith interest in 60 monthly installments.  The first installment was of Rs.7,900/- and the remaining installments were of Rs.8,045/- each.  It has further been maintained that the complainant has failed to pay the installments on due dates a number of times.  In fact, he has been a chronic defaulter resulting in delay of 2027 days.  Accordingly, Rs.33,906.81 is still pending as on 29.9.2012.  The opposite parties have, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs. 

3.                           No rebuttal evidence has been filed by the complainant

4.                           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record. 

5.                           The case of the complainant relates to non-issuance of NOC by the opposite parties despite making complete payment of EMIs as per the schedule.  The complainant has also stated that as yearly cheques were to be collected by the opposite parties, there was often a delay in collection for which only the opposite parties are responsible.  The opposite parties have maintained that the complainant has been a chronic defaulter due to which there is still outstanding balance against the complainant; resultantly, NOC cannot be issued to him.  The opposite parties have also maintained that both the parties are bound by terms and conditions of the agreement.  However, the agreement has not been placed on record.  Hence, reliance on clause 23, or any other clause, thereof, to our mind, is not supported by adequate evidence.

6.                           The comparison of the loan account placed on record by the complainant at Annexure C-2 and the schedule placed on record by the opposite parties at Annexure R-2 and R-3 shows that besides the regular EMI, the opposite parties have also charged money towards retainer charges, legal expenses, stamp recovery and other expenses, all of which comes to Rs.14,274.49.  Also OD charges have been levied for installments, total of which comes to Rs.15,312.32.  Number of days of delay has been mentioned against OD charges.  It has been given in Annexure R-3 that the amount due as on 24.2.2011 was Rs.4,82,555/- against which Rs.4,69,480.51 has been received leaving an over due of Rs.13,074.49 and outstanding expenses of Rs.4,170.00 thereby giving current overdue of Rs.17,244.49.  As per Annexure R-4 dated 29.9.2012, collection charges, legal expenses, retainer charges, ODC charges, stamp duty, stamp duty migration etc. have also been levied. 

7.                           To our mind, the charges levied by the opposite parties against the heads mentioned above can be levied only if permissible in the agreement.  This agreement is not on record.  The opposite parties have not even stated that the complainant is well aware of the agreement and the terms and condition therein.   Even the loan sanction letter has not been placed on record by either party, stipulating the terms and conditions of the grant of loan.   So, the benefit of doubt has to be given in favour of the complainant relying on the fact that he has made payment of all instalments against cheques which were collected collectively, in advance, by the opposite parties and no allegations about any default/dishonour have been made.

8.                           Accordingly, the claim of the charges, levied by the opposite parties, being unsubstantiated by cogent evidence, is not justified.  As a result, we cannot direct the complainant to make payment of the amount demanded by the opposite parties.  As per the complainant, the complete amount has been paid as per the repayment schedule as well as Tata Motors Ltd. ledger account (C-4).  No cheque has been dishonoured.

9.                           Accordingly, we allow this complaint and direct the opposite parties to cancel/reverse the amount being demanded, whatever the head may be, and issue NOC to the complainant against the loan amount received.   Parties are left to bear their own costs.

10.                       Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

23.05.2013.

Sd/-

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

hg