Judgment:
Lokeshwar Prasad, President:
1. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as âthe Act), is directed against order dated 1st November, 2000, passed by the District Forum (East), Saini Enclave, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 77/1999, entitled, Shri Mahavir Singh v. The Managing Director, Muthoot Leasing and Finance Ltd.
2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the appellant, Shri Mahavir Singh, had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum, averring that the appellant had entered into an agreement with the respondent to finance a vehicle (Tata Sumo, bearing Registration No. DC-7C-6594). The total cost of the above said vehicle was Rs. 3,49,986/-, out of which the appellant had deposited a sum of Rs. 78,833/-, towards payment of margin money, one equated monthly instalment (EMI) and LMF, vide Receipt No. 1503, dated 17th January, 1997, as per the directions of the respondent Company. It was stated in the complaint, filed by the appellant, that the appellant was asked to deposit a further sum of Rs. 22,740/- which was also deposited by him, vide Receipt No. 1522, dated 24th January, 1997. As per the case of the appellant, the net amount, financed by the respondent for the purchase of the above said vehicle, was to the tune of Rs. 2,62,500/- and after taking into account the other charges, the net hire purchase value was fixed to the extent of Rs. 3,80,628/-, which was agreed to be paid in 36 equal monthly instalments [EM (s)] each of Rs. 10,573/-, commencing from 25th February, 1997. It was stated that the appellant had deposited the monthly instalments regularly upto May, 1999 but the respondent re-possessed the vehicle in question without any notice or information to the appellant, and thereafter the appellant was made to pay a further sum of Rs. 1,24,961/-, vide receipt dated 14th June, 1999. In the complaint filed by the appellant, the appellant while alleging âdeficiency in service on the part of the respondent, had claimed the following reliefs :
(i) That the respondent be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 60,000/- to the appellant, over charged from him, in the name of interest, repossession charges, etc., and
(ii) That the respondent be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,100/- towards expenses incurred in legal notice, along with the cost of litigation.
3. The claim of the appellant in the District Forum was resisted by the respondent. In the written statement/written version filed on behalf of the respondent, the respondent had taken certain preliminary objections to the effect that the District Forum had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint; that the complaint filed by the appellant was frivolous and vexatious; that the dispute being raised by the appellant was not a âconsumer dispute; that there was no cause of action for the appellant to file the complaint; that the appellant had not approached the District Forum with clean hands. On merits it was stated that the appellant had approached the respondent for taking a loan for purchasing a vehicle in January, 1997. It was stated that on the above request of the appellant, the respondent agreed to finance the vehicle and at the instance of the appellant a cheque for Rs. 3,50,000/-, dated the 25th January, 1997, was issued by the respondent in favour of M/s. Pascos, drawn on Canara Bank, Connaught Place, New Delhi and vehicle No. DL-7C-6594 was handed over to the appellant by the above said firm after encashing the above mentioned cheque. It was stated that the appellant had entered into a âHire Purchase Agreement, dated 25th January, 1997, with the respondent. It was further stated that the hire purchase value of Rs. 3,80,628/- was agreed to be paid by the appellant to the respondent in 36 equal monthly instalments, each of Rs,. 10,753/-, commencing from 25th February, 1997. It was stated that the appellant made defaults in payment of instalments causing huge financial loss to the respondents besides harassment. It was also stated that after 25th December, 1997, the appellant never deposited the monthly instalments and after due intimation, the vehicle in question as per the terms of the Hire Purchase Agreement was repossessed by the respondent. Thereafter a compromise was arrived at between the parties on 14th June, 1999 and the appellant after making full and final payment in accordance with the compromise arrived at between the parties, received the vehicle in question back from the godown of the respondent on 14th June, 1999 itself. The allegation of over-charging had been specifically denied and it was stated by the respondent that the complaint filed by the appellant, be dismissed with costs.
4. The learned District Forum, vide impugned order, has held that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and on the above ground has dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant.
5. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 15 of the Act before this Commission.
6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant at length on the question of admission of the present appeal and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. The grievance of the appellant in the complaint filed by him before the District Forum in nut-shell was that he had been over-charged by the respondent and as already stated, the relief claimed by the appellant in the complaint filed by him before the District Forum was for the refund of Rs. 60,000/-, alleged to have been over-charged in the name of repossession charges, interest and cheques bounced charges, etc. The above dispute which was raised by the appellant before the District Forum, in our opinion, is not a âconsumer dispute. The same decidedly is a claim for the recovery of excess amount alleged to have been recovered by the respondent from the appellant. Moreover, the case, as put forth by the appellant, involves complex and complicated questions of facts, requiring elaborate enquiry as to what were the exact terms and conditions of the agreement stated to have been entered into between the parties; whether the appellant had paid instalments regularly upto 1999 or there were defaults in paying the instalments; whether the respondent actually in violation of the terms of the Hire Purchase Agreement over-charged the appellant in the name of interest, repossession charges, etc. All the above mentioned questions are complex and complicated question of fact, requiring elaborate enquiry which cannot be satisfactorily adjudicated in the present proceedings, which are summary in nature and the evidence as per the statutory provisions is also led by the parties by means of affidavits.
7. In view of the above discussion, no relief can be given to the appellant in the present appeal. The present appeal filed by the appellant is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. Accordingly the same is dismissed in limine, with no order as to costs. However, the appellant is given the liberty to approach the appropriate Forum for redressal of his grievances, being raised by him in the present appeal, if so advised.
The present appeal filed by the appellant stands disposed of in above terms.
Appeal dismissed.