State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Branch Manager Magma Leasing ... vs Manohar Lal on 15 October, 2012
BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SOLAN, H H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA. First Appeal No: 41/2011. Date of Decision: 15.10.2012. .................... 1. The Branch Manager Magma Leasing Limited, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. Opposite M.C. Office, Mahajan Bazar, Mandi, H.P. 2. Manager Magma Leasing Limited, Registered Officer 24, Park Street, Kolkatta, 700016. 3. Shri J.P. Bhardwaj, Autorized agent, Magma Leasing Limited, Opposite M.C. Office, Mandi, H.P. Appellants Versus Manohar Lal S/o Shri Banshi Ram, Resident of Village Doon Paggna Sunhanik, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. Respondent. . Coram Honble Mr. Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President Honble Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Member Honble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member Whether approved for reporting?[1] For the Appellants: Mr. Jai Dev Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. Vijay K. Verma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Umesh Kanwar, Advocate. O R D E R:
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) Appellants are aggrieved by the order dated 31.05.2010, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur whereby a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed against them by respondent Manohar Lal, has been allowed and they have been ordered to issue no objection certificate and to terminate hypothecation of the financed vehicle, within 10 days and also to pay `30,000/-, as compensation and `2,000/-, as litigation expenses.
2. Respondent Manohar Lal purchased a vehicle by raising loan from the appellants in the month of January, 2004. A hire purchase agreement was executed between the appellants and the respondent. The vehicle stood hypothecated with the appellants. Loan amount was agreed to be paid by the respondent in monthly instalments of `14,565/- each, from 01.01.2004 to 01.11.2007. These facts are undisputed.
3. Complainant in the month of March 2008, filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging that though he had paid all the instalments, as per schedule of payment and had, in fact, paid more money than payable under the agreement, he had not been issued no objection certificate nor had the hypothecation of the vehicle been terminated, as a result of which, he was unable to get the vehicle transferred in his own name. He alleged that he made various requests, but to no avail. Further, he alleged that he had received a demand notice from the appellants claiming an additional amount of `64,967.67, on account of alleged delay in payment of instalments. So, he prayed for issuance of direction to the appellants to issue no objection certificate and also to terminate hypothecation of vehicle and also to pay compensation.
4. Appellants contested the complaint and pleaded that there had been delay in payment of almost all the instalments, because of which penal interest was payable by the respondent at the rate of 3% per month, in terms of the agreement and that the additional amount claimed was due on account of delay in payment of instalments.
5. Learned District Forum concluded that majority of the instalments paid by the respondent were for `15,000/- each, though as per agreement, the amount of each instalment was `14,565/- and that additional payment made by the respondent took care of penal interest chargeable for the delayed payment. Consequently, the complaint was allowed and the impugned order passed.
6. Though, Shri Jai Dev Thakur, Advocate has put in appearance as proxy for the counsel engaged by the appellants, he has not rendered any assistance to us in disposing of the matter. He simply prays for adjournment on the ground that the original counsel is out of station which we decline. We have gone through the record ourselves and heard learned counsel for the respondent.
7. We find on record various receipts, Annexures C-5 to C-48, which the appellants issued in favour of the respondent at the time of payment of instalments by the latter. Also, we have seen the statement of account maintained by the appellants, which is Annexure 2/B. It is true that out of 48 instalments payable by the respondent at the rate of `14,565/-, 32 instalments are for `15,000/-, each, and one for `16,100/- and another for `17,000/-, but it is made out, not only from the statement of account, Annexure 2/B, but also from the receipts relied upon by the respondent, i.e. Annexures C-5 to C-48, that the respondent had delayed payment of almost all the instalments, for which penal interest was charged. The amount of penal interest chargeable/charged on each of the delayed payment of instalments finds mention in the aforesaid statement.
8. Learned counsel representing the respondent submits that no specific date of the months, in which instalments were payable, had been mentioned in the schedule of payment and, therefore, payment could have been made on any of the dates of the relevant month. We are unable to accept this submission, because in the schedule of payment attached with the agreement, Annexure 2/A, it is specifically mentioned that the first instalment was due on 01.02.2004 and the last one on 01.11.2007, which leaves little doubt that each instalment was payable on first day of every month.
9. In view of the above stated position, appeal is allowed, impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.
10. One copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Chander Shekhar Sharma) Member (Prem Chauhan) Member October 15, 2012.
N Mehta) [1] Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?