AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned order dated 15.05.2013, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission") in Appeal No. 296/2013, AU Financiers (India) Ltd. vs. Jitendra Singh Choudhary, vide which, while dismissing the appeal, the order dated 08.02.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Swai Madhopur in Consumer Complaint No. 244/2012, allowing the said complaint, filed by the present respondent, was upheld.
The brief facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent had taken a loan of Rs. 5,45,000/- on 25.08.2006 to purchase a Tavera vehicle, bearing registration no. RJ25TA 0177, which was repayable in 46 instalments of Rs. 14,930/- each. The complainant stated in his complaint that he used to deposit monthly instalments in the State Bank of India through cheques, but in the month of September, 2007, he went on some yatra and hence, the instalments were not paid on time. On 06.01.2012, the complainant visited the OPs when he was told that an amount of Rs. 51,282/- was payable by him and the said amount was paid on 06.01.2012 itself. However, on the other hand, the complainant received a notice dated 01.01.2012 from the OPs, in which it was stated that an amount of Rs. 22,018/- was due against the complainant. The complainant alleged deficiency on the part of the OPs, saying that they had accepted an amount of Rs. 51,282/-, although the amount due against him was Rs. 22,018/- only. The consumer complaint in question was then filed, saying that the excess amount of Rs. 29,264/- received by the OPs should be returned to him alongwith compensation of Rs. 5,000/- for mental agony and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation cost.
The complaint was resisted by the OP/petitioner by filing a written statement before the District Forum, in which they admitted that an amount of Rs. 51,282/- had been received by them on 06.01.2012. They stated, however, that the total amount due against the complainant was Rs. 73,910/- against which an amount of Rs. 51,000/- as foreclosure amount, Rs. 255/- towards CD and Rs. 27/- towards ST (surcharge), the total of Rs. 51,282/- was deposited by the complainant. However, as per the statement of account, the balance due amount from the complainant was Rs. 22,018/-. A demand notice for Rs. 22,018/- was, therefore, issued to the complainant, the co-borrower and the guarantor, but due to a bonafide inadvertent error, the date on the notice was written as 01.01.2012, instead of 23.01.2012. The OP/petitioner stated that the complaint deserved to be dismissed.
The District Forum, after taking into account the averments of the parties, ordered payment of Rs. 28,982/- to the complainant alongwith Rs. 2,500/- as Advocate fee. Being aggrieved against the said order, the OP challenged the same by way of an appeal before the State Commission. The said appeal having been dismissed, the OP financier is before this Commission by way of the present Revision Petition.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted at the time of arguments that they had not received any amount in excess from the complainant. In fact, they had produced an affidavit of Sh. Prakash Bhardwaj, the Advocate, who sent the notice on behalf of the OP/petitioner, in which he stated that the notice was sent on 23.01.2012, but due to mistake, the wrong date of 01.01.2012 was put on the said notice.
On behalf of the respondent, his father Prabhu Lal appeared as authorised representative. He stated that they had deposited an amount of Rs. 51,282/- on 06.01.2012, whereas as per the notice received by them from the OP/petitioner, dated 01.01.2012, the amount due was only Rs. 22,018/-. The excess amount should, therefore, be returned to them.
We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.
As per the material on record placed by the OP/petitioner, the outstanding amount as on 03.01.2012 was Rs. 73,910/-. The OP/petitioner has tried to explain that as per the statement of accounts, the said amount was due from the complainant. An affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the OP/petitioner stated that notice for the recovery of balance of Rs. 22,018/- was sent on 23.01.2012, but inadvertently, the date 01.01.2012 was put on the said notice. The version given by the OP/petitioner has not been controverted by the complainant in any manner. The authorised representative of the complainant was specifically asked during arguments, if he noticed any discrepancy in the accounts maintained by the OP/petitioner, but he was not able to point out any such mistake. In the light of these facts, it is clear that the order passed by the District Forum, duly confirmed by the State Commission is not supported by the facts on record and hence, the said orders are perverse in the eyes of law. In any case, the order passed by the State Commission is quite vague and sketchy and does not discuss the merits of the case at all.
From the foregoing discussion, this Revision Petition is allowed, the orders passed by the State Commission as well as the District Forum are set aside. The consumer complaint in question is ordered to be dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.