West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/134/2011

Ashalata Dolai - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, TATA Motor Finance Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

31 Jul 2012

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

 Complaint case No.134/2011                                                         Date of disposal: 31/07/2012                               

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. K. S. Samajder.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mrs. Debi Sengupta.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.

 

    For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Mr. M. K. Chowdhury.

    For the Defendant/O.P.S.                          : Mr. S.  Maity.

            Ashalata Dolai, W/o-Nirapada Dolai of Vill-Tutranga, P.O.-Thakurchak, P.S.-Belda

            Dist-Paschim Medinipur………Complainant.

                                                              Vs.

1. The Branch Manager, TATA Motor Finance Ltd., at O.T. Road, (Near Kharagpur LICI Divisional Office), P.O.-Kharagpur, Dist-Paschim Medinipur
2. TATA Motor Finance Ltd., at Nanavati Mahalaya, 3^rd floor, 18, Homimody Street Fort, Mumbai-400001
3. TATA Motor Finance Ltd., Building-A, 2^nd floor, Lodha-1-Think Techno Campus, Opp. Pokharan Road, 2Thane West, Mharashtra-400607…………………Ops.

The case of the complainant, in short, is as follows:-

The complainant alleged that she took loan of Rs.2,06,000/- from the Op No.1 as per loan agreement dated 31/12/2007.  It was agreed upon by both the parties that the complainant would repay the loan at 46 equated monthly installments of Rs.6,110/- and the first of such installment shall have to the paid in the month of March 2008 and the entire installments have to be paid by the month of November 2011.  It was further agreed as per the agreement and the repayment schedule that the EMI has to be paid on second of each moth.  The complainant further alleged that she was paying the installments but there are sum sought of irregularity in payment of the installments.  However, the entire loan was repaid and in the month of November 2011 the complainant went to the office of the Op No.1 when the Op No.1 asked the complainant to pay Rs.55,359/- as total dues towards liability of loan and non payment of such amount the complainant was assured to be given the No Objection Certificate.  Accordingly, on 11/2/2011 the complainant paid the said amount of Rs.55,359 and thereby the complainant paid total sum of Rs.2,82,485/- within the stipulated period as against the total amount of EMIs of Rs.2,80,984/- in

Contd………….P/2

- ( 2 ) -

spite of such payment the Op No.1 did not issue NOC.  On the contrary, the Op No.1 sent a letter on 25/7/2011 with a statement of account for further payment of Rs.21,407/-.  |According to the complainant such payment is illegal and the complainant should have not withheld the NOC. Hence this case for NOC and for compensation and other relief.

             After filing of the case the complainant filed a prayer for ad interim order so far that the Ops. cannot snatch away or take possession of the vehicle in question bearing No.WB-33A-5095 forcibly from the complainant such prayer of the complainant was allowed and the Ops were restrained till disposal of this case from taking away forcible possession of the vehicle.

 The Op Nos.1&2 entered into appears and filed a joint W/Os in which they contended, inter alia, that the parties to the higher purchase agreement were bound by the terms of the agreement.  However, these Ops contended that as on 13/3/2011 there was an outstanding overdue installment of Rs.8,572.72/- further, a sum of Rs.9,615.71/- accrued towards overdue charges which was payable by the complainant and an amount of Rs.2,900/- was payable by the complainant to these Ops towards expenses.  The Op Nos.1&2 further contended as many as on seven occasions the complainant issued cheques towards repayment of loan but the cheques were dishonored for in sufficient fund.  These Ops also contended that they have no objection to issue NOC if and when the complainant makes payment of the outstanding amount towards balance of installments, overdue charges and other expenses.

  The Op No.3 did not contest the case.  However, it appears that all the Ops belong to the same financial institution i.e. Tata Motor Finance Ltd.

   It is now for our consideration as to whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as sought for.

Decisions with reasons

   On perusal of the pleadings of the parties and after hearing the Ld. Lawyer for both the parties during  the time of hearing of the case it appears to be an admitted position that the complainant took loan of Rs.2,06,000/- from the Op No.1 by virtue of loan agreement executed by the parties on 31/12/2007 it further appears to be an admitted position that the said loan was to be repaid by the complainant by 46 EMIs and the first EMI was to be paid on 02/08/2008 and the last being on 02/11/2011.  It further appears to be admitted fact that the EMI to be paid on the second day of each month.  The total amount of EMIs arrive at Rs.2,80,984/-.  The complainant contended that she payment of all the installments but there were some irregularities in making such payment but ultimately all the EMIs were paid within the stipulated time.  During hearing a statement of repayment of loan detailing separately due date of payment, actual date of payment, amount of payment, balance etchas been filed by the contesting Ops.  It shows there from that on and from 02/02/2008 till 02/02/2011 a total amount of Rs.2,72,411.28/- was paid as against the amount of Rs.2,80,984/- which was to be paid by the complainant as per

Contd………….P/3

- ( 3 ) -

schedule of repayment of loan.  Therefore, a sum of Rs.8,572.72/- remained unpaid by the complainant. It also appears from the statement that there was delay in payment of the EMIs within the stipulated date on so many occasions. As per statement filed by the Ops total amount of Rs.9,615.71/- has accrued towards overdue charges.  Ld. Lawyer for the Ops maintained during the course of hearing of this case that the terms of overdue charges were clearly mentioned in the loan agreement and the overdue charges has been claimed in terms of that agreement.  On perusal of that loan agreement I find that there was a clause for payment of overdue charges by the complainant is there in the event of non payment of the EMIs within the stipulated date.  We have already mentioned that on so many occasions the complainant made payment beyond the stipulated date of second of each month  thereby attracting overdue charges.  The Ld. Lawyer for the complainant also could not refute the veracity of the statement.  The Ops have also furnished a list showing that as many as on nine occasions the cheques issued by the complainant for the purpose of payment of EMIs, were bounced.  This also attracted charges.

Therefore, after hearing the Ld. Lawyers for both the parties and on perusal of the documents filed in the record I find that the Ops were not unjustified in claiming payment of Rs.8,572.72/- towards balance amount of EMIs and the overdue charges of Rs.9,615.71/-. The total amount arrives at Rs.18,188.43/- i.e. Rs.18,188/- (eighteen thousand and one hundred eighty eight only).

  The Ops have further claimed Rs.2,900/-, towards outstanding charges. We find any cogent reason for making payment of such amount nor the ld. Lawyer could satisfy us about making of such demand.

  Thus in our considered view that a total amount of Rs.18,188/- (eighteen thousand one hundred and eighty eight) only is due to the Ops from the complainant.

                                     Hence

                                                ordered

                                                              that the case is allowed in part against the Ops. Nos.1&2 and ex parte against the Op. No.3.  It is hereby ordered that the complainant shall pay Rs.18,188/- (eighteen thousand one hundred and eighty eight) to the Ops. within 21 days from this date and within seven days of making such payment by the complainant, the Ops shall grant NOC relating to the vehicle bearing No.WB-33A-5095 in favour of the complainant.

 Thus this case alongwith the interim application is disposed of accordingly.  

Dic. & Corrected by me

                                                          I agree                I agree                      

              

         President                                  Member             Member                    President

                                                                                                                  District Forum

                                                                                                              Paschim Medinipur.