State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1.Magma Leasing Limited, Bhai Kanhaiya ... vs Saroj Kaushik Wife Of Shri Vinod ... on 17 January, 2014
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.13 of 2014 Date of Institution: 09.01.2014 Date of Decision: 17.01.2014 1. Magma Leasing Limited, Bhai Kanhaiya Sahib Chowk, Yamuna Nagar through its Incharge/Manager. 2. Magma Leasing Limited, SCO No.317-318, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh-160022, through its Managing Director. Appellants (Opposite Parties) Versus Saroj Kaushik wife of Shri Vinod Kaushik, Resident of House No.139/5, Thanewali Gali, VPO Sadhaura, Tehsil Bilaspur, District Yamuna Nagar. Respondent (Complainant) CORAM: Honble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President. Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member. Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member. For the Appellants: Shri Diwan S. Adlakha, Advocate. O R D E R
Justice Nawab Singh, President (Oral):
Challenge is to the order dated November 19, 2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yamuna Nagar (for short District Forum). For facilitation, the operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-
.the respondents are directed to charge interest at the rate of 9% p.a. for the over due days, if any, of the delayed payment of installment. The respondents will issue the fresh statement of account to the complainant within one month and after receiving the fresh statement of account the complainant will deposit the amount within one month and after that the respondents will issue the no dues certificate to the complainant within one month after deposit of above said amount. If the respondents fail to comply with the order within one month from the date of preparation of copy of this order then the complainant shall be at liberty to intimate action under section 25 and 27 of the C.P. Act. File be consigned to the record-room after due compliance.
2. Saroj Kaushik-complainant (respondent herein) took loan of Rs.14,25,000/- from Magma Leasing Limited-opposite parties (appellants herein) on February 15, 2005 to be repaid in thirty five monthly instalments, to purchase a J.C.B. machine (a machine used for digging and excavating). She paid in all Rs.16,52,420/-, whereby she cleared the loan amount. She approached the appellants for taking No Due Certificate to get the Certificate of Registration changed in her name and also eight cheques taken by the appellants, as security.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants has urged that the interest directed to be paid by the District Forum at the rate of 9% per annum, on account of delayed payment of installments, is on lower side because in the agreement executed between the parties, the rate of interest to be charged on delayed payment of installment was 36%.
4. This Commission does not concur with the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants because firstly, the interest directed to be paid on the delayed payment at the rate of 9% is justifiable and does not require any enhancement.
5. Secondly, the appellants have not placed on record any agreement to prove that in case of delayed payments, they were entitled to charge interest at the rate of 36%.
6. A perusal of the impugned order shows that calculation of the amount was thoroughly checked by the District Forum and it was found that there was delay of 1147 days, in all, in making the entire payment of installments, whereas the calculation sheet submitted by the appellants to show the delay of 2335 days in making the payment, was found wrong.
7. Taking into consideration that aspect of the matter, the District Forum rightly passed the order. There is no ground to interfere.
8. The appeal is dismissed.
Announced:
17.01.2014 (Urvashi Agnihotri) Member (B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member (Nawab Singh) President CL