AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PETITIONER which was the Opposite Party before the District Forum has filed this Revision Petition against the order and judgment dated 1.08.07 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan (in short, ''the State Commission'') in appeal No.630/04 whereby the State Commission has dismissed the cross appeals filed by both the parties and upheld the order of the District Forum quashing the demand of Rs.39,251/- raised by the PETITIONER and directing the PETITIONER to issue ''No Objection Certificate'' to the Respondent. FACTS:- Complainant/Respondent obtained a loan of Rs.4,87,000/- from the Rajasthan Financial Corporation, PETITIONER herein on 2.2.95 for buying a bus. She paid Rs.2,450/- as service charges and Rs.4,870/- towards upfront charges to the PETITIONER. Deed of Hypothecation was executed between the parties in respect of the loan on 1.3.95. The sum of Rs.4,87,000/- was disbursed by the PETITIONER by issuing cheque for Rs.3,06,000/- in the name of the Roshan Motors on 1.3.95, cheque for Rs.1,01,000/- in the name of Hanuman Body Maker on 8.3.95 and another cheque for Rs.80,000/- in the name of Chaudhary Travels on 19.04.95. As per the agreement, the loan amount was to be repaid in 48 equal monthly installments (EMI) of Rs.13,700/- p.m. The first installment of the principal and interest was to fall due on the end of two months from the date of first disbursement. Respondent after paying all the installments due in the month in which they fell due requested the PETITIONER to issue a ''No Objection Certificate''. She was informed that an amount of Rs.69,695/- was still outstanding against her loan account. Respondent paid three installments of Rs.13,700/- on 6.2.99, 3.3.99 and 31.3.99 totaling Rs.41,100/-. PETITIONER thereafter informed the Respondent that according to the amended formula, the monthly installment was revised to Rs.14,100/- from Rs.13,700/- and thus a sum of Rs.19,200/- was still payable by her. Later on, PETITIONER sent a letter on 27.6.2000 to the Respondent requiring her to pay a sum of Rs.39,281/- with interest. Respondent, being aggrieved, filed the complaint before the District Forum.
PETITIONER, on being served, put in appearance and filed its written statement resisting the complaint, inter-alia, on the grounds; that tentatively the EMI was fixed at Rs.13,700/- and the actual installment fixed was Rs.14,100/- to which the Respondent had agreed; that the Respondent was liable to pay Rs.47,902/- which includes principal loan amount of Rs.32,900/- and interest amount of Rs.15,002/-; that the complaint was barred by limitation; that the District Forum did not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the issue as the complicated questions of law were involved; that the complaint was liable to be dismissed as there was no deficiency in service on its part. District Forum partly allowed the complaint and quashed the demand of Rs.39,251/- raised by letter dated 27.6.2000. Petitioner was directed to issue ''No objection Certificate'' in respect of the loan in question within one month. Rest of the claims were rejected. Aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, Petitioner as well as Respondent filed the cross appeals which have been dismissed by the impugned order.
We have gone through the Deed of Hypothecation entered between the parties on 1.3.95. As per this Deed, the loan amount of Rs.4,87,000/- was to be repaid in 48 equated monthly installments of Rs.13,700/- p.m. The first installment of the principal sum and the interest was to fall due on the end of two months from the date of first disbursement. Clause 3 of the Deed reads as under:- "3. The Borrower doth hereby covenant with the Corporation that the Borrower shall repay the said principal sum of Rs.4,87,000/- (Rupees four lakh eighty seven thousand only) in 48 monthly equal installments, the first installment of principal sum and interest shall fall due at the end of two months from the date of first disbursement."
DATE by which the installment was to be paid was not mentioned. It is not disputed before us that the Respondent paid EMIs in the month in which they fell due. After paying the installments, Respondent requested the Petitioner to issue ''No Objection Certificate'' which was declined on the ground that sum of Rs.39,251/- was still due as the monthly installment had been revised to Rs.14,100/- in place of Rs.13,700/-. We find substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the Respondent that the equated monthly installment could not be revised by the Petitioner unilaterally without issuing any notice and entering into a new agreement. The Deed of Hypothecation entered between the parties was a bi-lateral agreement and could not be changed unilaterally by the Petitioner. Simply because the Petitioner is in a dominated position cannot be permitted to act arbitrarily and change the EMI unilaterally. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that as per agreement, Respondent was to pay interest @ 17% p.a. and if the calculation is made @ Rs.13,700/- p.m. then the interest amount falls short of agreed rate of interest. We do not find any substance in this submission. As per agreement, the loan amount of Rs.4,87,000/- was to be repaid in 48 equated monthly installment of Rs.13,700/- each which had been duly paid. In case there was any other amount due on account of wrong calculation made by the Petitioner, then the Petitioner should have revised the EMI after issuing notice and entering into a fresh agreement. Petitioner could not raise an arbitrary demand without revising the EMI after notice to the Respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner lastly contends that the Respondent did not pay the installment on first day of month in which the installments fell due and, therefore, Respondent was liable to pay interest for the delayed payment. In the Deed of Hypothecation, no date by which the installment due in to be paid is mentioned. As the date was not mentioned, the Respondent could pay the EMI on any date of the month for which the installment fell due. There is no basis to hold that the installment had to be paid on the first day of the month for which the installment fell due. Petitioner cannot determine the date by which the amount was to be paid as the same did not find mention in the agreement entered between the parties.
FOR the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in the revision petition and dismiss the same with no order as to costs.