The General Manager, Dove Finance Ltd., Chennai and Another Vs. B. Asokan - Court Judgment

HONBLE M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT

1. The opposite parties in O.P.72/2005 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, NagercoilRedressal Forum, Nagercoil, are the appellants.

2. The respondent herein as complainant, approached the lower Forum, seeking a direction for the return of RC Book, Duplicate Key, three blank signed cheques, directing the opposite parties to issue ‘No Objection Certificate as well for the compensation of Rs.50,000/- on the grounds, that for the purchase of Hero Honda Splendor Motor Cycle, he has borrowed a sum of Rs.33,000/- by executing hire purchase agreement, that at the time of borrowing the loan, he has handed over the duplicate key, blank cheques signed, that he has paid the entire loan and discharged the same, including interest, by paying a sum of Rs.37,134/-, that despite the discharged of the loan, the opposite parties have not handed over the RC Book etc., thereby, committed deficiency in service and in this view they should be given direction for the above said reliefs.

3. The appellants/opposite parties denying the averments in the petition, opposed the complaint, stating that the complainant has not fully discharged the loan and therefore as per the hire purchase agreement, unless the debt is discharged fully, they are not entitled to any relief and that the complainant is not a consumer, which should follow, the complaint itself is not maintainable.

4. Based upon the above averments, the trial forum considering the rival contention of the opposite parties, supported by the documents. The evaluation brought to surface, that the claim of the opposite parties towards additional interest, for late fee, are against the law and public policy, that in view of the fact that entire amount was paid, the opposite parties are bound to return the unused cheques, original RC book by canceling the hire purchase agreement with duplicate key, since the failure would amount to deficiency in service. Thus concluding, an order came to be passed, issuing direction, ordering compensation, which are under challenge in this appeal.

5. Heard, the learned counsel appearing for either side, perused the documents, written submissions as well as the order of the District Forum.

6. It is the common case of the parties, that the complainant on application (Ex.B1) and by executing loan agreement (Ex.B2), agreeing to pay the loan amount by way of installments (Ex.B3 and Ex.B5), borrowed a sum of Rs.33,000/-, for the purchase of a motorcycle, which was valued at Rs.44,792/-. Under the above said documents, the complainant agreed to repay the loan of Rs.33,000/- with interest thereon at 12.5% per annum, in 12 monthly equal installments, calculating the interest, at Rs.3,093/- per month. It is the specific case of the complainant, that he has paid a total sum of Rs.37,128/-, thereby, discharged the entire loan and therefore the opposite parties are not entitled to retain the RC Book, duplicate key etc., which he had entrusted with them at the time of borrowing the loan. On the other hand, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, that for the delayed payment, interest has to be calculated, in addition, late fee also to be paid, thereby, according to them, still there is balance and this being the position, no direction could be issued since they are entitled to retain the RC Book etc., till the loan is discharged.

7. By going through the order of the lower forum, as well as perusing the documents, which indicates the mode of payment, actual payment made, we are of the view that the complainant has paid more than the amount agree to pay under the hire purchase agreement, and this being the factual position, claiming interest for the belated payment or late fee are untenable, as recorded by the lower forum. Repayment, as agreed, per month is Rs.3,093/- and total installments payable is 12 months. If we calculate, the total amount would come to Rs.37,116/-. On the other hand, as recorded by the lower forum, evidenced by Ex.A3 to Ex.A13, the complainant has paid a total sum of Rs.37,128/-. Therefore, the complainant has proved that the entire loan has been discharged and having discharged the loan, he is entitled to get back the unused cheques as well as duplicate key, RC Book and the failure to return the same, should be construed as deficiency in service. The lower forum correctly analyzing the above facts, has recorded the finding, issuing direction for the return, in which, we are unable to interfere.

8. As far as the compensation is concerned, grant of Rs.25,000/- appears to be on the higher side. For the non return of the RC Book, blank cheques signed, certainly there is some suffering by the complainant and that should be compensated by awarding reasonable compensation. If the opposite parties have returned the RC Book, blank cheques etc., even we should have set aside the compensation, and it seems as on this date, orders not complied with. Therefore, instead of setting aside the compensation, we are inclined to modify the same, reducing the compensation to Rs.5,000/-.

9. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part, reducing the compensation alone from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.5,000/-, confirming the other directions of the lower Forum. There will be no order as to cost in this appeal.