U.B. PANDEY vs Tata Finance Ltd.

THIS appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the order dated 17.9.2001 in Complaint No. 201/2001 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter called ''District Forum'' for short) dismissing the complaint of the complainant/appellant.

UNDISPUTABLY the complainant/appellant purchased a Tata Sumo vehicle on 3.11.1997 by obtaining finance of Rs. 2,50,000/- from the respondent. The above amount was to be repaid in equal monthly instalments of Rs. 11,210/- which were to start from November, 1997 and was to be end in March, 2000. It is also not in dispute, that in case instalments were paid punctually as per the stipulation between the parties, the complainant/appellant would get 2% rebate on final payment of the instalment as above. According to the complainant, he had paid 28 instalments punctually as it was stipulated between the parties. He, therefore, claimed that 2% rebated be granted towards 29th instalments payable by him and he should be given no-due certificate as well as documents of the vehicle. It was further averred by the complainant that the respondent financier further however refused to give the rebate as above on the pretext that instalments were not paid in due time as per schedule. The complainant also averred that he paid an amount of Rs. 13,283/- in March, 2000 under protest and obtained no-dues certificate and documents of vehicle from the respondent. The complainant prayed that the additional charges of Rs. 13,283/- which include 2% rebate, be awarded to him.

The complaint was resisted by the respondent financier. It was mainly averred that instalments were not paid as per schedule. A statement of repayment by the appellant was also filed by the respondent in support of its averments.

THE District Forum held that the re-payments were not made punctually as per schedule of re-payment and some cheques given by the complainant/appellant were also dishonoured. Hence it was held that he was not entitled to rebate of 2%. It was also held that the amount of Rs. 13,283/- was paid because the appellant had failed to pay the instalments as per schedule. It was accordingly held that the complainant was not entitled to any relief and the complaint was accordingly dismissed. It is noticed that as per the conditions of the agreement punctual payment of instalments was made the essence of the agreement. It was also stipulated that the hirer shall be deemed to have committed default the instalments in case the instalments payable under the agreement remained unpaid for more than 14 days. The schedule of payment filed by the respondent shows that several instalments were paid beyond the period of 14 days, after they became due. It also appears from the documents placed on records that certain cheques issued by the complainant, were dishonoured by the Banks, for want of funds in the account of the complainant. In view of the above it is clear that the condition of punctual payment as per schedule was not adhered to was not complied with by the complainant/appellant. Therefore, he was not entitled to 2% rebate as claimed. The finding as above of the District Forum appears to be justified and it is based on proper appreciation of document and material placed on record.

WE find no reason for interference in the impugned order. This appeal has no substance and it is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.