AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dinesh Singh, J.
The matter in brief is that the respondent - complainant obtained a loan of Rs. 3,20,000/- from the revisionist - finance co. for purchasing the subject vehicle. The loan was for 36 months. The complainant deposited post-dated cheques with the finance co. There was an agreed arrangement between both parties to the effect that the complainant would pay EMI (equal monthly installment) to the finance co. in cash and get back his corresponding post-dated cheque for the said month.
The case of complainant was that he had paid all monthly installments without default. The finance co. refused to issue its NOC (No Objection Certificate) despite duly receiving all monthly installments. The finance co. wrongly alleged that one monthly installment was not paid and wrongly demanded one (more) monthly installment with penal charges and penal interest. The finance co. indulged in deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
The contention of the finance co. was that the complainant had committed default in payment of one monthly installment. The complainant was liable to pay the said monthly installment with penal charges and penal interest in addition to cheque bounce charges. The NOC was rightly withheld.
The District Forum heard both sides, appraised the evidence and through a reasoned Order dated 19.02.2014 partly allowed the complaint, inter alia holding that:
This Statement of Account under Ex.B2 filed by the Opposite Party is nothing but an Unfair Trade Practice as the same is contradicted by their own document under Ex.A1. The Opposite Party has miserably failed to establish that the Complainant was due by an amount of Rs. 9,651/- on 18.04.2011. This view has also lend support from the fact that the Opposite party has issued Ex.A2 (Ex.A42) receipt for the final payment installment. It also lend support from the fact that the Opposite Party had returned Ex.A3 cheque dated 10.02.2010. Ex.A9 to Ex.A41 receipts clearly indicates that the Complainant had paid all paid all the 35 installments. In view of the documentary evidence under Ex.A1, Ex.A2 and Ex. A9 to Ex.A42, we hold that the Complainant is not at all liable to pay any amount to Opposite Party and as such the documents filed by the Opposite Party under Ex.B5 statement of account is of no consequence and have no evidentiary value. We therefore, hold that the Opposite Party has not only committed deficiency of service but also adopted Unfair Trade Practice.
(para 7 of the Order)
Though the Complainant had paid the entire loan amount by 18.04.2011 still the Opposite Party is illegally and arbitrarily contending that the Complainant is due a sum of Rs.17,000/-. But the Opposite Party has miserably failed to substantiate the said contention. The Complainant was subjected to mental agony and untold misery for no fault of him without issuing No Objection Certificate. Consequently, he was not in position to get the R.C. transferred in his name and run his vehicle freely on the road. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the ends of justice would be met if an amount of Rs.100/- per day is awarded for causing inconvenience from running his vehicle on the road freely. We are also of the view that it is just and reasonable to award compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards the mental agony, hardship and trauma caused to the Complainant.
(para 8 of the Order)
In view of our findings on point No. 1 to 4, we hold that the Complainant is entitled to get the "No Objection Certificate" from the Opposite Party without any further payment. The Complainant is also entitled for a sum of Rs. 100/- per day towards damages for causing inconvenience to him to run the vehicle on the road freely. The Complainant is also entitled to compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony, hardship and trauma suffered.
In the result the complaint is partly allowed with the following terms:
The Opposite Party shall issue "No Objection Certificate" without insisting further payment from the Complainant.
The Opposite Party shall pay Rs.100/-(Rupees One Hundred only) per day from 18.04.2011 till the date of payment towards punitive damages for causing inconvenience to the Complainant for running his vehicle freely on the road.
The Opposite Party shall pay a sum of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony, hardship and trauma caused to the Complainant.
The Opposite Party shall pay Rs.2,000/-(Rupees Two Thousand only) towards costs.
The Opposite Party shall comply the order within 30 days from the date of this order.
(para 9 of the Order)
The finance co. appealed in the State Commission. The State Commission heard both sides, appraised the evidence and through a reasoned Order dated 11.10.2017 dismissed the appeal, inter alia holding that:
The Opposite Party Finance Company has specifically challenged maintainability of the case by virtue of the arbitration clause contained in the Hire Purchase Agreement. In this regard it is to be seen that as per Section-3 of the Act, 1986, it's provisions are in addition to and not in derogation of provisions of any other law for the time being inforce. Therefore, the Complainant sought to enforce his rights by invoking the provisions of the Act, 1986 by way of filing the instant complaint on 21.08.2012. Having received the notice in it the Opposite Party Finance Company approached the arbitrator in the month of September-2012 as evident from the notice from the Arbitral Tribunal under Ex. A6. Infact, the Complainant has filled his written version in it and brought to the notice of the said Tribunal about pendency of his complaint before the District Forum. Ex.A8 & B2 are copies of the said written version.
(para 8 of the Order)
It is not in dispute that as per the mutual agreement between the parties, the Complainant used to pay the monthly installments in cash to the Opposite Party Finance Company and take back the original cheques. Infact, when the original cheques were in the custody of the Opposite Party Finance Company, nothing prevented it from encashing the same from the bank account of the Complainant whenever there was delayed payments, instead of charging penal interest. It is also to be noted that though the Opposite Party Finance Company has claimed cheque bounce charges, it didn't file any piece of evidence to show that any cheque was ever bounced. Under this circumstance it cannot lie in the mouth of the Opposite Party Finance Company to allege that the Complainant was not punctual in making payments of the installments. All these facts, in our considered opinion, manifestly establish unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party Finance Company. In this view of the matter, we hold that the self created documents by the Opposite Party Finance Company i.e., Statement of Account and Ledger Summary vide Ex.B4 & B5 respectively are of no consequence and deserve to be discarded.
(para 9 of the Order)
We have given careful consideration to the impugned order. The learned District Forum has appreciated the entire material evidence placed on record in a right perspective. The findings arrived at by it are neither perverse nor erroneous but are based with sound and convincing reasoning. Even, the award of Rs.100/- per day towards punitive damages, in our considered opinion, is most reasonable so also the quantum of compensation for the mental agony and undue hardship suffered by the Complainant in not plying his vehicle for no fault on his part. For these reasons we hold that the Appeal is devoid of any merits and that as such liable to be dismissed.
(para 10 of the Order)
This revision has been filed by the finance co. under Section 21(b) of the Act 1986 against the said Order dated 11.10.2017 of the State Commission.
I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist - finance co., and perused the record.
Section 21 (b) of the Act 1986 under which the revision has been filed is as below:
to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.
The State Commission's Order dated 11.10.2017 is well-reasoned. After re-appraising the evidence, the State Commission concurred with the District Forum. Grave error in appreciating the evidence by the two fora below, as may cause to require re-appreciation of the evidence in revision, is not visible. On the face of it, a jurisdictional error, or a legal principle ignored, or miscarriage of justice, is not visible.
There is no reason evident to interfere with the concurrent findings of the District Forum and the State Commission.
It is to further say that there are two distinct components in the Orders of the two fora below, one, the concurrent finding of fact that the complainant had duly paid all monthly installments in time and the finance co. had wrongly withheld its NOC, and, two, that in addition to issuance of its NOC, the finance co. should pay Rs.100/- per day from 18.04.2011 (i.e. the date the last monthly installment was duly paid) till the date of payment as punitive damages, Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as costs to the complainant.
In respect of one above, that is, the finding of fact that the complainant had duly paid all monthly installments in time and the finance co. had wrongly withheld its NOC, it has been seen that there is no grave error in appreciating the evidence by the two fora below, as may cause to require re-appreciation of the evidence in revision.
In respect of two above, that is, that in addition to issuance of its NOC, the finance co. should pay Rs.100/- per day from 18.04.2011 till the date of payment as punitive damages, Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as costs, it may be seen that the agreed agreement between the finance co. and the complainant was executed on 13.05.2008, the final installment was duly paid by the complainant to the finance co. on 18.04.2011, not settling the accounts promptly and correctly and not issuing its NOC promptly and dutifully by the finance co. caused continuous loss and injury to the complainant from 18.04.2011 onwards. Service provided by the finance co. to the complainant was not gratis - the pre-agreed interest was charged and recovered. On repayment of the entire loan with interest, the finance co. should have been prompt and dutiful in correctly settling the accounts and immediately issuing its NOC. In the stead, elements of highhanded 'master' : 'servant' attitude by the finance co. qua the complainant is distinctly visible in this case, which is not how a finance co. should (and could) have treated a consumer - complainant who on his part had been prompt and dutiful in repayment of the entire loan with interest. No case is made out to dilute the punitive charges, compensation and cost awarded by the District Forum and upheld in appeal by the State Commission.
It is further appropriate that the compliance of the State Commission's Order dated 11.10.2017 may be ensured by the finance co. within 30 days of this Order, failing which the District Forum is requested to initiate the due execution proceedings against the finance co. The onus is on the finance co. to be prompt and dutiful in providing its NOC and in making the adjudicated payments to the complainant. Creating yet further harassment, uncertainty and difficulty for the consumer - complainant by withholding or delaying its NOC or withholding or delaying the adjudicated payments (if the adjudication is not stayed or quashed or modified by a higher authority / court) will be an unacceptable situation, to be viewed seriously - the harassment, uncertainty and difficulty of the consumer should end promptly and fully, the chapter should close. Therefore, if the finance co. delays the issuance of its NOC or delays the adjudicated payments beyond the time stipulated, it would and should attract enhanced punitive damages, compensation and costs (which will be determined by this Commission if the contingency so arise).
It is not deemed appropriate or necessary to trouble the respondent - complainant by calling him to New Delhi.
The revision petition is dismissed.
A copy of this Order may be sent to the District Forum and the State Commission as well as to the complainant by the Registry.