State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Kmp Kotak Mohindra Primus Limited vs Chand Singh Dhaliwal S/O ... on 26 October, 2009
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UNJAB,
SCO NOS.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No. 984 of 2003.
Date of institution : 05.08.2003.
Date of decision : 26.10.2009.
KMP Kotak Mohindra Primus Limited, through its authorized representative
Sh.Sammi Kumar, Branch No.73, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana.
.....Appellant
Versus
Chand Singh Dhaliwal s/o Sh.GurdialSingh, r/o H.No.52, Adarsh Colony,
Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana.
.....Respondent
First Appeal against the order dated 11.3.2003
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Ludhiana.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President
Lt.Col. Darshan Singh (Retd.), Member
Piare Lal Garg, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. D.K.Singla, Advocate.
For the respondent : Sh. Bhuwan Luthra, Advocate.
LT.COL.DARSHAN SINGH (RETD.) MEMBER
The respondent/complainant (Chand Singh Dhaliwal) got financed Rs.1,00,000/-from the appellant/opposite party (KMP Kotak Mohindra Primus Limited) to purchase Maruti 800 car. The complainant repaid the loan as per schedule i.e. 35 instalments of Rs.3750/- each. After making payment of the loan amount, the complainant approached the opposite party for issue of No First Appeal No. 984 of 2003 2 Objection Certificate which was required to get the name of the opposite party removed from the registration certificate of the vehicle. The opposite party failed to issue the No Objection Certificate despite repeated visits of the complainant to the office of the opposite party. Alleging deficiency in service on part of the opposite party, the complainant filed consumer complaint with the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (in short "District Forum"), Ludhiana and prayed for directions to the opposite party as under:-
(i) Issue No Objection Certificate to get the vehicle de-hypothecated i.e. getting the name of the opposite party removed in the column of hypothecation in registration certificate of the vehicle.
(ii) To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation.
(iii) To pay Rs.11,000/- as costs.
2- The opposite party filed written reply and raised certain preliminary
objections regarding jurisdiction of the District Forum to entertain the present claim. The opposite party submitted that the complainant did not pay the hire charges as per the agreement. Cheques issued by the complainant for repayment of the loan amount were dishonoured time and again and the opposite party had to pay the cheque bouncing charges to the bank and the complainant was bound to pay the same as per terms of the agreement. As sum of Rs.250/- was to be charged by the opposite party every time the cheque was bounced. As per the statement of account maintained by the opposite party, the complainant was in arrears of Rs.32,708/32p.The complainant was also liable to pay interest for the delayed payment. The opposite party further submitted that the vehicle was purchased by the complainant under the hire purchase agreement and he was bound to pay the charges for bounced cheques and interest on delayed payment.
The opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 3- Parties led evidence in support of their respective versions by way of affidavits and documents.
First Appeal No. 984 of 2003 34- Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the documents brought on record, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to issue No Objection Certificate to the complainant to enable him to get the entry of hypothecation removed from the registration certification of the vehicle. An amount of Rs.4000/- was found recoverable from the complainant by the opposite party and the complainant was required to pay the same to the opposite party before issue of NOC.
5- Hence, the appeal. 6- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
complainant did not pay the loan instalments as per schedule. He was liable to pay the charges for the bounced cheques and interest on the delayed payment. He prayed for setting aside the impugned order of the learned District Forum. 7- On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant submitted that there was no merit in the appeal and the same be dismissed. 8- Record has been perused and submissions have been considered. 9- Admittedly, the complainant purchased the car with finance of Rs.1,00,000/- provided by the opposite party and the complainant has paid all instalments which were payable as per the agreement. Grievance of the complainant is that the opposite party has not issued NOC to enable him to get the vehicle de-hypothecated and get the necessary entries made to that effect in the RC of the vehicle. The claim of the opposite party was that a number of cheques issued by the complainant bounced and the complainant was liable to pay for bounced cheques and also interest on delayed payments. Opposite party claimed that an amount of Rs.32,708/- was still outstanding on account of bounced cheques, delayed payment and repossession charges of the vehicle. The opposite party has placed on file statement (Ex.P-2) showing that 16 cheques issued by the complainant were bounced and the opposite party debited Rs.250/- per cheque in the account of the complainant. In our view, the bouncing charges First Appeal No. 984 of 2003 4 of Rs.250/- per cheque are quite high and the opposite party should have charged the amount actually recovered by the bank from the opposite party. As such, an amount of Rs.50/- per cheque is considered fair and reasonable and the total amount for 16 cheques comes to Rs.800/-. Similarly in Ex.P-2, the opposite party has mentioned the misc. charges of Rs.10,171/83p and repossession charges of Rs.22,535/-.How this amount has been worked out by the opposite party, has not been made clear. We are of the opinion that the amount charged above is highly excessive and amounts to unfair trade practice on part of the opposite party. An amount of Rs.3200/- on this account is considered fair and reasonable. The opposite party can not be allowed to raise unreasonable and arbitrary demands against the consumer. As such, only an amount of Rs.3200/- is allowed on that account. Therefore, the total amount recoverable from the complainant comes to Rs.4000/- only.
10- In view of the above discussion, we uphold the findings recorded by the Learned District Forum and do not find any illegality in the same. The impugned order dated 11.3.2003 is, therefore, upheld and the appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
11- The appeal could not be finalised within the stipulated time frame due to heavy pendency of the Court cases.
(Justice S.N.Aggarwal) President (Lt. Col. Darshan Singh [Retd.]) Member Piare Lal Garg Member October 26,2009.
(Gurmeet Singh)