Back
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
S.N. Aggarwal, President, Amarpreet Sharma and Baldev Singh Sekhon, Members
PAWAN KUMAR - Appellant
Versus
KOTAK MAHINDRA PRIME LTD. AND ANR. - Respondents
First Appeal No. 17 of 2007
Decided on : 14-09-2011
Mr. Akshay Jain, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Madan Sandhu, Advocate, for the Respondent
The central legal point established is that loan agreements must accurately reflect the terms and conditions, and borrowers are entitled to recover excess payments and compensation for unfair practices.
Headnote:
Loan Agreement - Tata Sumo Spacio - Schedule 1 of the loan agreement - Loan amount, repayment schedule, and excess charges discussed - Loan amount falsely shown as Rs. 3 lacs while actual amount was Rs. 2,30,000 - Loan repayment and excess payments analyzed - Recovery of excess amount and compensation awarded
Fact of the Case:
The appellant purchased a Tata Sumo Spacio motor car for Rs. 3,95,000, with a down payment of Rs. 1,65,000 and the remaining amount financed by respondent No. l. The appellant made payments totaling Rs. 3,77,670, but respondent No. l repossessed the vehicle and demanded additional payment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the loan amount was falsely shown as Rs. 3 lacs while the actual amount was Rs. 2,30,000. The court concluded that the appellant had made excess payments and was entitled to recovery of Rs. 94,870 and compensation of Rs. 20,000 for the forced repossession of the vehicle.
Issues: Dispute over the loan amount, repayment, and excess charges, as well as the forced repossession of the vehicle.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the loan agreement contained false information and the appellant was entitled to recover the excess amount paid and compensation for the forced repossession.
Final Decision: The appeal was accepted, and respondent No. l was directed to make the payment of Rs. 94,870 and compensation of Rs. 20,000 within 2 months, with interest at 9% per annum if payment was delayed.
ORDER
S.N. Aggarwal, President - The appellant had purchased Tata Sumo Spacio motor car for an amount of Rs. 3,95,000 from respondent No. 2. He had made the down payment of Rs. 1,65,000 and the remaining amount of Rs. 2,30,000 was financed by respondent No. l for which an agreement dated 30.5.2003 was executed between the parties. This amount was to be returned by the appellant with interest @ 6% per annum in 35 monthly instalments but the appellant has already made the payment of Rs. 3,77,670 on different dates.
2. It was further pleaded that the financed vehicle was forcibly repossessed by respondent No. 1 on 1.5.2006. The appellant had demanded the account from respondent No. l but they failed to do so. Rather on 15.5.2006, respondent No. l issued a letter to the appellant showing the financed amount as Rs. 3 lacs while actually the loan amount was Rs. 2,30,000 only. Respondent No. 1 forced the appellant to make the payment of Rs. 40,190 and only thereafter, the vehicle was released by respondent No. l on 16.5.2006.
3. It was further pleaded that respondent No. l had charged the principal amount of loan in excess by Rs. 70,000 and the interest amount has also been charged in excess. Hence, the complaint for recovery of Rs. 70,000 along with interest. Compensation and costs were also prayed.
Version of Respondent No. 1
4. Respondent No. l filed the written statement. It was pleaded that Tata Sumo vehicle of the appellant was financed by respondent No. l to the tune of Rs. 3 lacs. It was denied if the loan amount was only Rs. 2,30,000. The amount was to be re-paid by the appellant in monthly instalments of Rs. 10,080 each but the cheques issued by the appellant had bounced many times. Therefore, the appellant was liable to pay bouncing charges as well as penal interest.
5. It was further pleaded that the vehicle was re-possessed by respondent No. 1 as per the terms of the agreement as the appellant had defaulted in repayment of the loan amount as per the repayment schedule. The appellant had deposited the amount of Rs. 40,190 voluntarily. It was denied if respondent No. l has committed any unfair trade practice or any deficiency in service.
6. The preliminary objections were also pleaded that the District Forum did not have the jurisdiction; the complaint was not maintainable; the appellant was required to file the suit for rendition of accounts and the complaint was based on forged and fabricated documents. Hence, it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000.
Version of Respondent No. 2
7. Respondent No. 2 also filed the written reply. It was admitted that the appellant had purchased Tata Sumo from respondent No. 2 and it was financed by respondent No. l particularly. Dismissal of the complaint qua respondent No. 2 was prayed.
Proceedings before the District Forum
8. The appellant filed his affidavit Ex. C1. He also proved documents Ex. C2 to Ex. C3. On the other hand, respondent No. l proved documents Ex. OPl. Respondent No. l also filed the affidavit of Luxmi Narain Sharma, Collection Manager dated 16.10.2006. They also proved documents Ex. OP3 to Ex. OP6.
9. The learned District Forum dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 22.11.2006.
10. Hence, this appeal.
Discussion:
11. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant was that not only respondent No. l had falsely shown the loan amount as Rs. 3 lacs while in fact the loan amount of Rs. 2,30,000 was extended to him but he has also charged interest amount in excess. Hence, it was prayed that the appeal be accepted, impugned judgment dated 22.11.2006 be set aside and respondent No. l be directed to refund the amount charged in excess.
12. On the other hand, the submission of the learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 was that there was no merit in the present appeal qua respondent No. 2.
13. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
14. There is no dispute that the appellant had purchased Tata Sumo Spacio on 19.3.2003 from respond
