Full Judgment
R.C. Chavan, President:
Applicant/appellant has filed an application for placing on record an agreement dated 05/02/2004 which could not be placed by the appellant on record of the forum since it was not available. Learned counsel for the respondent has no objection. Application is therefore allowed.
This appeal is directed against an order dated 06/09/2007 passed by the District Forum at Satara whereby forum dismissed appellants complaint no.210/2006.
We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent.Appellant had borrowed a certain sum of money for purchase of a motor truck from the respondent company. Since the appellant defaulted in repayment of the loan as per schedule, Company seems to have taken possession of the vehicle. There is no dispute that there was default in repayment of loan and 9 cheques of the appellant were bounced. Contention of the appellant is that the loan installment itself was fixed incorrectly adding the finance charges of Rs.1,60,056/- and insurance deposit of Rs.45,000/- to the amount of loan taken and, therefore, according to him EMI fixed at Rs.19,450/- was not correct. District Forum refused to look into the grievance on finding that the appellant has not produced copy of the agreement. Today, we have allowed appellant to tender copy of the agreement. Agreement mentions that the borrower was to pay the amounts mentioned in the agreement. First schedule of the agreement refers to various payments to be made and includes an item called Interest Charges quantified at Rs.1,60,056/-. This is what is referred to as finance charges in the statement of account relied on by the appellant. Total number of installments was fixed at 47 and the total value of the EMIs was Rs.8,89,056/- as per the schedule. Second schedule mentioned 47 EMIs to be paid. Both these schedules are duly signed by the appellant. It is thus clear that the appellant had agreed to pay finance charges or interest charges, however they are described, quantified at Rs.1,60,056/-. This seems to have been added to the total amount of loan advanced in order to work out EMI. There is no interest in addition to Rs.1,60,056/- which the appellant was required to pay. Therefore, amount of Rs.1,60,056/- is interest pre-calculated. Since there is no further interest required to be paid over and above EMI, therefore, contention that Rs.1,60,056/- should not have been included in the total agreement value has to be rejected.
This takes us to the question of sum of Rs.45,000/- shown as insurance deposit. Ld.counsel for the appellant submits that since under the agreement appellant was supposed to provide insurance to the vehicle and has paid the insurance premium accordingly, there is no question of insurance deposit being included in the agreement value. As a financier if the financier takes insurance deposit in order to avoid the risk of borrower not insuring the vehicle, there is nothing wrong in that. It is termed as œdeposit? and it would have been open for the appellant to secure his refund of the deposit had the appellant repaid the amount borrowed according to schedules to which he has agreed. Since this has not been done and the Insurance Company has repossessed the vehicle and possibly also sold the same, Insurance Company must have been required to insure the vehicle from the time it repossessed the vehicle till it was sold. Therefore, appellant cannot be held liable. We find no error in the order of the District Forum and consequently dismiss the appeal.