AU FINANCIER (INDIA) LTD. REGISTERED OFFICE AT 19 DHULESHWAR GARDEN, AJMER ROAD JAIPUR RAJASTHAN Vs. JITENDRA SINGH CHOUDHARY S/O PRABHULA, R/O KUTUPURA JATAN NEAR RAILWAY STATION MAINTOWN, SAWAI MADHOPUR RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned order dated 15.05.2013, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission") in Appeal No. 296/2013, AU Financiers (India) Ltd. Vs. Jitendra Singh Choudhary, vide which, while dismissing the appeal, the order dated 08.02.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Swai Madhopur in Consumer Complaint No. 244/2012, allowing the said complaint, filed by the present respondent, was upheld.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent had taken a loan of Rs. 5,45,000.00 on 25.08.2006 to purchase a Tavera vehicle, bearing registration no. RJ25TA 0177, which was repayable in 46 instalments of Rs. 14,930.00 each. The complainant stated in his complaint that he used to deposit monthly instalments in the State Bank of India through cheques, but in the month of Sept., 2007, he went on some yatra and hence, the instalments were not paid on time. On 06.01.2012, the complainant visited the OPs when he was told that an amount of Rs. 51,282.00 was payable by him and the said amount was paid on 06.01.2012 itself. However, on the other hand, the complainant received a notice dated 01.01.2012 from the OPs, in which it was stated that an amount of Rs. 22,018.00 was due against the complainant. The complainant alleged deficiency on the part of the OPs, saying that they had accepted an amount of Rs. 51,282.00, although the amount due against him was Rs. 22,018.00 only. The consumer complaint in question was then filed, saying that the excess amount of Rs. 29,264.00 received by the OPs should be returned to him along with compensation of Rs. 5,000.00 for mental agony and Rs. 2,000.00 as litigation cost.

(3.) The complaint was resisted by the OP/petitioner by filing a written statement before the District Forum, in which they admitted that an amount of Rs. 51,282.00 had been received by them on 06.01.2012. They stated, however, that the total amount due against the complainant was Rs. 73,910.00 against which an amount of Rs. 51,000.00 as foreclosure amount, Rs. 255.00 towards CD and Rs. 27/- towards ST (surcharge), the total of Rs. 51,282.00 was deposited by the complainant. However, as per the statement of account, the balance due amount from the complainant was Rs. 22,018.00. A demand notice for Rs. 22,018.00 was, therefore, issued to the complainant, the co-borrower and the guarantor, but due to a bona fide inadvertent error, the date on the notice was written as 01.01.2012, instead of 201.2012. The OP/petitioner stated that the complaint deserved to be dismissed.