K.M. NAGARAJ vs MANAGER, TATA FINANCE MOTOR LTD.

This revision petition is directed against the order of the State Commission dated 02.04.2013 whereby the State Commission while concurring with the order of the District Forum dismissed the appeal preferred by the Petitioner/Complainant at the admission stage.

Briefly stated the facts relevant for the disposal of the present revision petition are, that Petitioner/Complainant took a loan of Rs.3,23,997/- from the Respondent?Finance Company. The amount as per the contract was repayable along with interest in 36 monthly installments. The first installment was being for Rs.8,997/- and the balance installments were to be paid @ Rs.9,000/-. According to the petitioner, he had paid 35 installments by cheques, which were encashed. The petitioner/complainant as per his own calculation approached the respondent/opposite party for making the balance amount of Rs. 6,508/- against the loan amount and requested for issue of ''No Dues Certificate'' and cancellation of hypothecation of his vehicle but the opposite party failed to do so. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a consumer complaint against the respondent alleging deficiency in service on its part before the District Forum.

Respondent/Opposite Party on being served with the notice of the complaint filed written statement admitting giving loan of Rs.3,23,997/- to the complainant with interest. It is also an admitted fact that the loan amount alongwith interest was payable in 36 installments as alleged by the complainant. However, according to the opposite party, the complainant is a chronic defaulter and he defaulted in payment of almost each and every installment and after adjustment of the amount paid by the complainant, an amount of Rs.37,403.91P was still due against the complainant as on 04.06.2011. The opposite party further stated that it has no objection to issue the ''No Objection Certificate'' and cancellation of hypothecation provided all the dues are cleared by the complainant.

District Forum on considering of the pleadings and evidence of the parties did not find any deficiency in service on the part of the respondent/opposite party. The District Forum thus disposed of the complaint, directing the complainant to pay the balance dues to the opposite party and the opposite party was directed that on receipt of the said amount, it should issue ''No Objection Certificate'' in respect of Hypothecation No.935729 dated 31.1.2006 in respect of ''Tata Indicab/diesel'' which was hypothecated as a security to the loan amount.

Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, petitioner preferred an appeal bearing First Appeal No. 119 of 2013 before the State Commission, Karnataka. The State Commission on consideration of all the pleadings and evidence of the parties did not find any merit in the appeal and dismissed it at the stage of admission. This all has led to filing of the present revision petition.

Mr. B.S. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner has contended that the orders of the Fora below are not sustainable because they have failed to appreciate that the total amount payable by the complainant as per the contract was Rs.3,23,997/- against which admittedly, the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.3,17,489/- by cheques, which has been encashed. Thus as on 23.01.2008, only a sum of Rs.6,508/- was due for payment against the loan amount, which amount the petitioner/complainant offered to pay against issue of ''No Objection Certificate'' pertaining to hypothecation of the said vehicle. But the opposite party with ulterior motive raised a claim of an higher amount, i.e., Rs.37,403.91.

We do not find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. On perusal of record, we find that it was a categoric case of the opposite party that the petitioner had failed to make the payment of almost each and every installment in time or in full. Thus, the complainant obviously was supposed to pay interest on the delayed payment. On the other hand, petitioner has given his own calculation in a simplistic manner as to what was the total loan amount and what was amount paid by him, without any reference of delay in making the payment of due installments or the interest payable thereon. Thus, we do not find any merit in this revision petition particularly in view of the fact that both the Fora below have given a concurrent finding on fact after due appreciation of evidence with well-reasoned orders.

In view of the discussion above, petitioner has failed to show any jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the impugned order, which may call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Revision Petition is, accordingly dismissed with litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/(Rupees Five Thousand only).