SRI.K. VIJAYKUMARAN, PRESIDENT.<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed by the complaint for realization of compensation, Registeration certificate, termination certificate etc.<br /> <br /> The averments in the complainant can be briefly summarized as follows:<br /> <br /> The first opp.party is the branch of the 2nd opp.party and canvassing consumers for 3rd opp.party. The first opp.party canvas the complainant for purchasing HeroHonda Passion motor cycle and the complainant availed a loan of Rs.30,000/- executing a hire purchase agreements. Towards repayment of loan amounts 27 cheque leaves each for Rs.1647/- were given by the complainant to the 3rd opp.party. The vehicle purchased utilizing the loan amount was registered with registration NO. KL.2/L6970. Out of the 27 cheque leaves issued by the complainant, nine were dishonoured and therefore the complainant paid EMI amount and bouncing charges , collection charges etc. The bouncing charge of Rs.250/- and penal interest at the rate of 3% were paid and the opp.parties have realized Rs.1,500/- in excess from the complainant. The opp.parties are exploiting the consumers. The opp.party who have sanctioned a loan or Rs.30,000/- to the complainant have realized a sum of Rs.63,239/- from the complainant. Even though the complainant demanded the registration certificate and clearance certificate the opp.party did not issue the same. They have demanded a sum of Rs.6,000/- additional for issuing the above certificate. The Goondas of the opp.party therein the complainant and demanded the above Rs.6,000/-. The complainant has not receive any written demand in this regard. Due to the conduct of the opp.party the complainant has suffered mental agony and damages for which the complainant may be awarded Rs. 25,000/- as compensation. Hence the complaint.<br /> <br /> The opp.party filed a joint version contendin, interalia, that the complaint is not maintainable either in law on facts<br /> The complainant is not a consumer . The averments in para 2 of the complaint is not fully correct. The company M/s. Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. having registered office at Chennai is a public limited company which is not made a party to the complaint and so the complaint is notmaintainable on the sole ground of non-joinder of necessary party. It is not true that the complainant was canvassed by the first opp.party to enter into an Hire Purchase agreement. The complainant approached the opp.party and executed a hire purchase agreement. It is not true that the complainant has availed a loan of Rs.30,000/- only but he has availed a loan of Rs.38,357/-. As per the agreements the total amount repayable is Rs.54,352/-. As per the terms of the agreement the loan amount is repayable in 36 monthly instalments commencing from 22.8.2001 and terminating on 22.8.2004. If the repayment is delayed it will carry additional finance charges at the rate of 36% per annum. If the post dated cheques is dishonored the complainant is liable for the bank charges and other expenses. The vehicle was registered and the possession of the vehicle was given to the complainant as the hirer. Most of the cheques given by the complainant were dishonoured and the payments were effected after considerable delay. As per the statement of account maintained by the company an amount of Rs.5885/- is still due to the company. Proper receipts have been issued to the complainant for all receipts. The statements in para 7 of the complaint is contrary to the terms of the Hire Purchase agreement under the Hire Purchase agreement the hirer is to pay the instalments exactly on the due dates failing which overdue charges will have to be paid. The averment that the opp.parties are exploiting the consumers for making excess profit is not correct and so denied. The opp.party has produced the correct statements. The averments in para 9 of the complaint is not true. The complainant had not remitted the entire amount due to the company and so he is not entitled to get hire purchase termination documents and the registration certificate. The complainant was asked to pay the overdue amount as per the terms of the contract. It is not true and correct that the complainant had been compelled to pay Rs.6000/- . It is only a false story created by the complainant to escape from the legal dues. The opp.parties has not caused either mental or economic injury or loss to the complainant. The complainant have been enjoying the Hire Purchase Agreement and he wanted to continue the same without discharging his obligations. The complainant is not entitled to get any compensation for mental agony. Hence the opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint with their costs.<br /> <br /> Points that would arise for consideration are:<br /> <br /> 1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties<br /> 2. Reliefs and costs.<br /> <br /> For the complainant PW.1 is examined. Ext.P1 series is marked.<br /> For the opp.parties DW.1 is examined. Ext. D1 to D3 are marked.<br /> Points:<br /> <br /> Though a contention regarding maintainability has been raised as preliminary issue by the opp.party the same was answered in favour of the complainant and that decision has become final.<br /> <br /> As a matter of fact execution of Ext.D1 Hire Purchase Agreement is not disputed. It has also come in evidence that there was default in repayment of the loan amount. However the entire loan amount has been paid by the complainant is admitted by DW.1 in cross examination at page 2 that the amount due as per bounced cheques has already been paid by the complainant. <br /> <br /> Now the dispute is with regard to the payment of certain additional charges such as overdue charges, penal interest etc. DW.1 in cross examination has stated that they are collecting bouncing charges @ Rs. 250/- and penal interest @ 36% per annum where as Ext. D3 Hire Purchase Agreement shows that the same are respectively Rs.200/- and 2.5% per month. Ext. D1 shows that the overdue charges due from the complainant is Rs.2365/-. Ext. D2 shows AFC on other charges due is Rs.3519/89. No question regarding correctness of the amount in Ext. D1 and D2 were put to DW.1 when he was cross examined.. It appears that the difference in the amount stated by the complainant and claimed by the opp.party is due to the calculation of bouncing charge @ Rs.250/- and penal interest @36% per annum as against Rs.200/- and 30% shows in Ext. D3. No satisfactory explanation is forthcoming for the difference. In these circumstances we are of the view that no amount as claimed by the opp.parties is due to them from the complainant as it is clear from the evidence of DW.1 that the calculation is not in accordance with Ext. D3 Hire Purchase Agreement. Therefore, we find that the complainant is entitled to get back the R.C. book of the vehicle and clearance certificate. Nothing has been brought out in evidence warranting payment of any compensation to the complainant. Point found accordingly.<br /> <br /> <br /> In the result the complaint is allowed in part, directing the opp.party to issue the complainant R.C. book of the vehicle bearing Registration No.KL.2L 6970 if not already issued and also loan clearance certificate after terminating the loan account. We direct the parties to suffer their respective costs.The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of this order.<br /> <br /> Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2008 <br /> <br /> <br /> I N D E X<br /> List of witnesses for the complainant<br /> PW.1. – Aniju<br /> List of documents for the complainant<br /> P1. series – Receipts [8 Nos.]<br /> List of witnesses for the opp.parties<br /> DW. 1 -.Geevarghese Kuryakose<br /> List of documents for the opp.parties<br /> D1. – Statement of Account dt. 8.7.2005<br /> D2. – Additional finance statement dt. 8.7.2005.<br /> D3. – Hire Purchase Agreement<br />