Dt. of filing – 24/08/2018
Dt. of Judgement – 28/05/2019
Mrs. Sashi Kala Basu, Hon’ble President
This consumer complaint is filed by the Complainant namely 1) Mamuda Bibi under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Party namely Branch Manager, Magma Fincorp Ltd, alleging deficiency in service on his part.
Case of the Complainant in short is that Opposite Party is a finance company to help their customer by way of financing in purchasing assets. Complainant was financed by the Opposite Party by an agreement dated 30/11/2014 of Rs.5,55,000/- in purchasing Truck of Tata Motors Ltd. The total cost of the vehicle was Rs.7,94,000/-. Complainant was to repay the said loan amount in 47 monthly installments starting from 1/1/2015. She paid 40 installments regularly. Final negotiation was completed and both the parties agreed that if the Complainant pays Rs.49,888/- at a time for remaining 7 outstanding installments loan amount of the Complainant would be completely disbursed. Complainant paid Rs.49,888/- on 6/4/2018 and requested the Opposite Party to issue no objection certificate as the entire loan amount was repaid. But the Opposite Party has not issued no objection certificate. A demand notice was also sent. So the present case has been filed for directing the Opposite Party, to issue no objection certificate, to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for harassment and mental agony and Rs.20,000/- as litigation cost.
Complainant has annexed with the complaint petition
her Aadhaar Card, copy of the payment schedule, payment made of Rs.47,000/- and Rs.2,888/- respectively and also demand notice dated 25/5/2018.
On perusal of the record it appears that inspite of service of notice no step was taken by the Opposite Party and thus vide order dated 13/2/2019 case was directed to be proceeded ex-parte.
So the only point requires determination:-
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons
On perusal of documents especially the payment schedule, filed by the Complainant it appears that an amount of Rs.5,55,000/- was given as loan amount and tenure for payment by Complainant was within 47 months in accordance with the EMI as stated in the payment schedule. According to Complainant she paid 40 installments regularly and for remaining 7 installments there was a settlement to pay Rs.49,888/- at a time. She has filed certain receipts showing the payment of EMI. However, she has not filed any document in order to substantiate her claim that as per the settlement she was only required to pay Rs.49,888/-. The document filed by her dated 4/4/2018 described as ‘Pre closure Termination Report’, indicates that the total amount receivable by the Opposite Party has been stated of Rs.94,417/-. Even though there is reflection about interest of principal outstanding till settlement date indicating that there was some settlement, but the settlement was to pay only Rs.49,888/, finds no reflection in the said document. So if the said document is taken into consideration which has been relied upon by the Complainant herself then her claim that there was settlement to pay Rs.49,888/- cannot be accepted. It is settled principal of law that the parties seeking relief has to prove his/her case. Since the document is very apparent that net amount receivable by Opposite Party was Rs.94,417/- and as the same has not been paid, claim of the Complainant that she has paid back the entire loan amount, cannot be accepted. Thus the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
It will not be out of place to mention that there cannot be any denial that the truck has been purchased for the use of commercial purpose but the Complainant has nowhere stated in the complaint petition that the truck is used for the purpose of earning her livelihood. So as the Complainant is not a consumer, on this ground also, complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Hence,
Ordered
CC/525/2018 is dismissed ex-parte.
