Shriram Transport Finance Co Ltd vs AWDHESH KUMAR DUBEY

-APPELLANT was the opposite party before the State Commission, where the respondent had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant.

UNDISPUTED facts of the case are that the complainant had obtained financial assistance from the appellant for purchase of a truck under a ''hire purchase'' agreement for which he deposited margin money of Rs. 97,000. The appellant advanced an amount of Rs. 3,80,000 and also paid Rs. 20,000 towards premium amount of insurance. The total amount payable by the complainant including interest spread over 36 months came to Rs. 5,68,948. As per the appellant''s case the complainant only paid the amount of Rs. 87,000 only between Feb. 1996 to August 1996, thereafter he became defaulter. In the light of these circumstances, the truck was re-possessed and sold for Rs. 4,25,000. It was the case of the complainant that he had spent Rs. 1,20,000 on building the body of the truck and had also spent Rs. 66,000 in purchase of tyres as also articles worth Rs. 43,110 were also spent, which was over and above since he suffered loss on account of repossession. A complaint was filed before the State Commission, who after hearing the parties and perusal of material on record allowed the complaint only to the extent that the appellant was directed to pay Rs. 40,052 with interest @ 12% p. a. and cost of Rs. 1,000. In case the amount is not paid within 30 days, the interest shall be payable from 1. 5. 1997. Aggrieved by this order the appellants filed an appeal before us. Despite service none appeared on behalf of the respondent, hence he is proceeded ex parte.

We heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. There is no disputing the fact that the total amount payable by the complainant along with interest came to Rs. 5,68,948. There is also no dispute that the margin money of Rs. 97,000 was paid by the complainant for purchase of truck and also Rs. 87,000 were paid by way of instalment to the appellant. The truck was sold for Rs. 4,25,000, thus, bringing the total to Rs. 6,09,000 on the credit side. Admittedly, the total amount payable by the complainant to the appellant over the period of 6 months was Rs. 5,68,948. If we deduct this total due amount from the amounts received by way of margin money, instalment and proceeds of sale, it was excess to the extent of Rs. 40,052. It is important to note that the total amount payale by the respondent was spread over 36 months, whereas the vehicle was repossessed much earlier than that, hence for this period, liability relating to interest was not payable yet we have catered for the full amount due after 36 months including the interest for the period, when the vehicle was repossessed by the appellant. Since the other party is not in appeal, we are not entering into the question.

LEARNED Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued on the point of Section 17 of the Hire Purchase Act, 1972. We are not getting into the question of Hire-Purchase Act, 1972, as it was never came into force as it was never notified. In the aforementioned circumstances, if the State Commission has awarded Rs. 40,052, it cannot be faulted. However, we find that the interest rate is on the high side, which is reduced to 9% p. a. and the interest shall be payable by the appellant to the complainant from the date of filing of the complaint before the State Commission till the date of payment along with cost of Rs. 1,000, already awarded by the State Commission. The order of the State Commission stands modified accordingly.

THE appeal stands disposed of in above terms. Appeal disposed of.