Hon’ble Mr. Sudip Niyogi, President.
This case arises out of a petition u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The case of the Complainant in short is that the Complainant had purchased one four wheeler Bolero Pik UP BS-II vehicle of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. for earning his livelihood by means of self-employment from the authorized dealer Khokon Motors Works & Pvt. Ltd., Siliguri, which was later duly registered bearing No.WB-73-B 4755 and the said vehicle was hypothecated to Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. i.e. OP No.1, who had agreed with the Complainant to finance in the form of a loan of Rs.3,76,000/-@ 12% interest per annum in order to enable the Complainant to purchase the vehicle. The mode of repayment of loan was 45 equal instalments. At the time of sanctioning of loan, OP No.1 obtained signatures of the Complainant on several papers though Complainant did not have any knowledge about them. The Complainant claimed that he paid Rs.5,24,265/- instead of Rs.4,97,206/- to the Ops through cash and cheque, which was collected by OP’s Agent. According to OP, the money receipt issued by them was ambiguous. Subsequently, the Complainant got a summary of loan from OP No.1 which revealed that he made deposits of Rs. 1,79,135/-.
After liquidation of the said loan, Complainant insisted for “No Objection Certificate” but did not get any response from the Ops. It is alleged by the Complainant that the rate of interest charged by the Ops is not in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India and the Ops demanded further Rs.1,50,000/- for obtaining “No Objection Certificate”. It is further alleged that the Complainant apprehended to take over the said vehicle verbally. So, Complainant filed this complaint praying for several relief (s) in the form of direction for issuing NOC for cancellation of hypothecation in favour of the Ops, submission of Statement of Account and compensation etc. Complainant alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
Both the Ops contested this case by filing written version and also evidence. In the written version, Ops admitted about the agreement entered into with the Complainant to advance loan in order to enable the Complainant to buy the vehicle. For the purpose of the said loan, OP No.1 also obtained signatures of the Complainant in the loan agreement forms as per norms and procedures. It is alleged that the Complainant was very irregular in making payment of EMIs on due date, which resulted in delayed payment interest (DPI) accrued upon the EMIs resulting in additional payment to be made above the amount of instalment. It is contended that Op No.1 demanded Rs.1,15,357/-, which is the amalgamation of arrears due to non-payment of EMIs and delay payment interest accrued on it in order to settle the loan agreement and issuing “No Objection Certificate”. The Ops prayed for dismissal of the complaint case.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the instant case is maintainable?
- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, as alleged?
3.Is the Complainant is entitled to get any relief?
4.To what other relief, if any, Complainant is entitled?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point No.1.
During argument, though Ld. Agent appearing for the Ops disputed about the jurisdiction of this case, which was strongly opposed by his Ld. Adversary, it is found that the Complainant is not a resident of this district, but the Office of the OP No.1 is situated within this district. Therefore, following the provision of Section II of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain this case. That apart, the amount of compensation as prayed for comes within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum. This apart, considering the facts stated in the complaint, it is found that the instant case is maintainable.
Point No.2, 3 & 4.
All these points are taken up together for discussion.
The fact that the Complainant had purchased a four wheeler Bolero Pik UP BS-II vehicle of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. with the financial assistance of the Ops, who had advanced a loan of Rs.3,76,000/- following an agreement entered into between them is admitted by the parties. It is also admitted that in view of the aforesaid loan, the said vehicle was hypothecated to the Ops during the pendency of the said loan. The rate of interest of the said loan as claimed by the Complainant is 12% per annum. According to the Complainant, the said payment would be made by 45 instalments and the total amount payable was Rs.4,97,206/-.
Now, the Complainant alleged that despite payment of Rs.5,24,265/- was made by him instead of Rs.4,97,206/-, Ops are not issuing “No Objection Certificate” to enable him to release the vehicle from hypothecation. Instead, Ops further demanded Rs.1,50,000/- from the Complainant on 30.01.17 to liquidate the entire dues in respect of the said loan.
We find that the Complainant prayed for several reliefs including direction upon the Ops to issue “No Objection Certificate” for cancellation of hypothecation in favour of the Ops and also to produce a copy of the loan agreement, and also to submit an up-to-date statement of Accounts.
The direction for issuance of “No Objection Certificate” is depended upon the liquidation of entire dues in connection with the loan advanced by the Ops to the Complainant. Now, the OP is found to have filed a copy of the agreement and other related documents including Statement of Accounts for the period ending 10.03.17.
In the written complaint as well as in the evidence and written argument, the Complainant stated the amount of instalment on different dates paid by him to the Ops. Admittedly, as per agreement, repayment would be made on equal monthly instalment, number of which was 45 but the Statement of Accounts produced on behalf of the Ops reveals that the Complainant could not pay the amount of instalment in accordance with the dates always.
As per submission of Ld. Agent on behalf of the Ops, as the Complainant failed to pay EMI in accordance with the agreement, Complainant was to make additional payment for delaying the payment of interest accrued on EMI. The Statement of Accounts reveals all these things and finally as per the said statement, Complainant has to pay in total Rs.5,93,691.96 including dues on DPI, whereas the Complainant is found to have paid Rs.4,78,335/-. So, the balance amount of Rs. 1,15,356 is still due from the Complainant. The statement submitted by the Complainant showing the payment on different dates and different amount made by him are also found to be tallied with the Statement of Account produced by the Ops. This apart, what is more intriguing is that even after production of loan agreement and the Statement of Accounts as on 10.03.17, no dispute was raised on behalf of the Complainant with regard to the said statement. The Complainant failed to point out any deviation or variation or any undue charge in the said statement. So, in the circumstances, we are not in a position to pass any order of giving direction for issuance of “No Objection Certificate” etc. upon the Ops.
Therefore, the instant case is liable to be dismissed.
Hence, it is
Ordered
That the instant Case No. CC/14/2017 be and the same is dismissed on contest. No order as to cost.
Let plain copy of this Order be supplied to the parties concerned by hand/by Post forthwith, free of cost for information & necessary action, if any.
The copy of the Final Order also available in the official website: www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
