KOTAK MAHINDRA PRIME LTD Vs. SHARDA GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE limited grievance of the appellant against the impugned order dated 29th June, 2007, passed by the District Forum whereby the appellant has been directed to refund Rs. 61,000 to the respondent as excess amount received by it and Rs. 10,000 as compensation and Rs. 3,000 as cost of litigation is that the District Forum has not taken into consideration the amount in excess, if any, was charged by the dealer of the car to whom the appellant has directly disbursed the loan amount sanctioned for the purchase of the vehicle and therefore if at all there was any deficiency it was on the part of the dealer and not on the part of the appellant-Bank.

(2.) CASE of the respondent before the District Forum, in brief, was that she entered into a Hire Purchase Agreement with the appellant on 16. 5. 2002 for financing a new 2002 Model Santro car whose price was Rs. 3,50,000. The balance after down payment of Rs. 2,44,000 was financed but respondent taken by surprise when she shocked statement of account at which the respondent approached the appellant that how the amount of Rs. 2,98,054 has been shown as financed. Further one EMI has been taken unofficially initially against which neither any receipt was provided nor any credit has been given. The appellant in this manner charged Rs. 61,000 in excess, which was never refunded while the respondent has already been paid all the amounts to the appellant in September 2005.

(3.) IN its reply the appellant admitted that the respondent paid the margin money of Rs. 1,06,265 but the respondent procured the loan of Rs. 2,98,054 on the fraudulent misrepresentation that the loan was being availed in respect of a particular model value of Rs. 4,04,000 after procuring the loan purchased a car of lower category. The EMI of Rs. 7,000 was never made at the time of loan by the respondent. It was denied that the appellant had taken Rs. 61,000 in excess.