SEEMA VERMA vs MANAGER, ASHOK LEYLAND FINANCE

THIS appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 14.3.2002 in Complaint No. 445/2001, by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter call the ''District Forum'' for short) dismissing the complaint of the complainant/appellant.

THE relevant facts not in dispute stated in brief are that the complainant/appellant purchased a jeep by obtaining loan of Rs. 1,60,000/- under hire purchase agreement from respondent No. 1. THE total amount payable with interest under the said agreement by the complainant was Rs. 2,37,200/-. THE above amount was payable in 36 instalments. It is also not in dispute that whole of the above amount has already been paid by the complainant/appellant. In fact Rs. 9/- were paid in excess, in addition to the above amount of Rs. 2,37,200/- as would be clear from the statement (Annexure-''A'') issued by the respondent. It appears that dispute arose on account of respondent asking for additional finance charges amounting to Rs. 5,873.71 p. on account of alleged belated payment of the amount of instalments. According to the complainant/appellant the amount of additional finance charges as above was not payable by him, as he had issued post-dated cheques for all the instalments, as desired by the respondent yet demand as above was being raised by the respondent.

The respondents in their reply resisted the complaint. It was admitted by them that complainant/appellant had deposited the instalments towards the said agreement but it was stated that many instalments were paid belatedly. Accordingly, they claimed that additional finance charges were leviable towards which they demanded Rs. 5,874/- from the complainant/appellant.

LEARNED District Forum upheld the contentions of the respondent as above and dismissed the complaint holding that additional finance charges as shown in the statement by the respondent was leviable and that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the respondent. Learned Counsel for the parties raised similar contentions in this appeal, as raised by them in the District Forum.

THE main question that deserves to be considered is as to whether respondents demand of additional finance charges of Rs. 5,874/- (Rs. 5,873.71 p.) was justified? It is clear from the averments in para 3 of the complaint that the amount under the agreement was to be paid by the complainant in instalments, for which post-dated cheques in advance were given by the complainant/appellant, to the respondents as desired by them. According to the averments of the complainants/appellant though the said cheques were duly signed and month and year of payments was mentioned but the date therein was to be filled by the respondent, as desired by them. It may be noticed that the above allegations in the complaint have not been specifically denied in the written version of the respondent. It is also clear from the statement furnished by the respondents themselves, that the amounts of cheques were recovered. This substantiates the above averments of the complainant/appellant. Moreover, respondents never appear to have intimated the complainant/appellant regarding belated issuance of any cheques or that the amount of the cheques could not be collected due to want of balance in the account of the complainant/appellant. Since the cheques were issued in advance and accepted as payment of instalments by the respondents, the arrangement as above obviously was as agreed to between the parties. Therefore, the respondents cannot now be permitted to raise the grievance that the amount of cheques was collected and credited in their account belated by the Bank. In fact, there is neither any averment nor any material to show as to when the cheques were sent by the respondents for collection. Hence the complainant/appellant is fully justified in stating that delay, if any, caused in the collection of the cheques was not on account of any default on the part of the complainant/appellant. It is, therefore, clear that the mode and manner of payment of instalments by post-dated cheques was duly complied with by the complainant/appellant by issuance of cheques as above, and as the respondents have agreed to accept the cheques toward payment of instalments, no grievance in that regard could be raised by the respondents if there was delay in collecting the amount of the cheques from the Bank.

IN the circumstances it is clear that the respondents were not entitled to claim any additional finance charges, as they demanded. The learned District Forum erroneously relied upon the statement of account furnished by the respondent and in holding that additional finance charges were leviable as per the said statement.

ACCORDINGLY, this appeal and the complaint is allowed. The impugned order of the District Forum is set aside. It is directed that the respondents shall not demand any additional finance charges from the complainant/appellant and shall release the papers of the vehicle forthwith without any delay. In addition, the respondent shall also pay compensation of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) on account of deficiency in service committed by them. The complainant/appellant shall also get from the respondents the cost of complaint as well as of this appeal. which is quantified at Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only). Appeal allowed.