RAM SARAN MALHOTRA R/O HOUSE NO. 3261/1, SECTOR-41-D, CHANDIGARH Vs. SALES DIRECTOR, CITICORP MARUTI FINANCE LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Complainant, Petitioner herein purchased a Maruti Car bearing No. CH-03-A-1399 in March, 2000 after obtaining a loan from the Respondent. The repayment was to be made in 5 years in equated installment of Rs.3,417/-and 59 post-dated cheques drawn in favour of the Respondent were issued. Installments were paid till February, 2005 though some penalty was shown due towards the Complainant on account of dishonouring of certain post-date cheques. Petitioner asked for second loan of Rs 1,10,000/- on the same vehicle which was to be repaid in 36 installments of'Rs.3700/- per month. As per agreement executed between the Petitioner and the Respondent, an advance receipt and 36 post-dated cheques of Rs.3.700/- each for February, 2005 to January, 2008 were issued by the Petitioner in favour of the Respondent. A letter was received'by the Petitioner with regard to approval of his loan application but the amount of loan was not mentioned though the account No.CEC-462-1010056 was mentioned. On 5.3.05. a draft of Rs.75,854/- was received by the Petitioner but he was aggrieved that instead of sanctioning of loan of Rs 1.10,000/-, amount of Rs.75.854/- only was disbursed to him. In response to his enquiries, he was handed over a slip in which it was mentioned that the approved loan amount was Rs.98.500/-out of which Rs. 12,745/- had been deducted on account old Joan. Petitioner filed the complaint with the averment that a sum of Rs.34,145/- was illegally withheld by the Respondent and he had been charged excess amount. A direction was sought against the. Respondent to issue a copy of loan agreement and payment of Rs. 24,081.87 with interest @24% from the date of approval. Rs.10 lakh were claimed as compensation and Rs.50,000/- as costs of litigation.

(2.) Respondent, on being served, entered appearance. Factum of availing of loan by the Petitioner vide loan agreement dated 2.3.02 was admitted. It was submitted that the Petitioner had been informed that the second loan would be sanctioned only on clearingthe outstanding loan amount in the previous account bearing No. DKA-462-0363421. That the Petitioner vide his letter dated 14.02.05 had agreed to adjust his previous loan amount in the subsequent one. It was submitted that loan of Rs.95,758/- and not Rs. 1,10,000/- as alleged by the Petitioner, was sanctioned. It was stated that as per assessment of the vehicle, the value of the car was estimated at Rs.1,15,000/- as given In the valuation report and accordingly, a loan of 83.27%- of the evaluated amount, i.e., Rs.95,758/- was sanctioned out of which Rs.19,903.06 lying outstanding in the previous loan account were; adjusted and thus a sum of Rs.75,854.94 was disbursed to the Petitioner on 3.3.05. Copies of the statement of account and loan agreement dated 18.02.05 were brought on record. It was submitted that cheque for the month of February, 2005 had been encashed by the OP No.6 for which OP Nos. 1 to 5 were not liable. It was submitted that loan was to be repaid by monthly installments of Rs.3,417/ spanning over a period of 59 months. In spite of the fact that certain cheques issued by the Petitioner were dishonoured. Respondent did not recall the loan facility. It was stated that amount of Rs. 19,903/- was laying outstanding in the previous loan account and the Petitioner himself requested the Respondent that the outstanding amount in the previous loan account be adjusted in the subsequent one as the loan was being advanced against the same vehicle.

(3.) After going through the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, District Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that under a hire purchase transaction, the financer does not render any service within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the Petitioner was, thus, not a 'consumer' as defined in Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act. District Forum relied upon the judgment of this Commission in R.P. No. 827 of 2006 titled Ram Deshlahara v. Magma Leasing Ltd., 2006 3 CPJ 247