K.DHARMARAJ Vs. BRANCH MANAGER ASHOK LEYLAND FINANCE
LAWS(TNCDRC)-2008-4-20
TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on April 04,2008

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

K.SAMPATH, J. - (1.) The complainant in O.P.No.36/2004 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tiruvarur, is the appellant herein. The short facts leading to the appeal are as under:- (a) The complainant entered into a hire purchase agreement with the opposite parties and availed a loan of Rs.25,000/- for purchase of a two wheeler on 05/03/2002. He issued 12 post dated cheques each for Rs.2,396/-. There was dishonour of some of the cheques with the result, the opposite parties demanded additional finance charges of Rs.1,091/-. According to the complainant, all the cheques had been honoured and the opposite party were not agreeing to have the hire purchase agreement terminated. The complainant sent a notice through lawyer on 22/12/2003. The opposite parties responded stating that there was a sum of Rs.1,091/- as additional finance charges due and unless that was paid the complainant could not have termination of the hire purchase agreement. The complainant came forward with the complaint claiming Rs.1,000/- towards penal charges, Rs.10,000/- towards compensation, Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony alleging that the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service by not issuing no objection letter.
(2.) The District Forum dismissed the complaint finding that the cheques were dishonoured for insufficiency of funds and additional finance charges were payable by the complainant to the opposite parties and therefore there was no deficiency in service. It is as against that the present appeal has been filed.
(3.) We have gone through the materials on record. Heard counsel. We are of the view that the order of the District Forum is correct and no interference is called for. It is not disputed that two cheques were dishonoured for insufficiency of funds as could be seen from Exs.A2 to A9. The statement of account marked as Ex.B2 filed by the opposite parties as well as their reply notice Ex.B3 clearly showed that there was a sum of Rs.1,091/- outstanding remained unpaid as additional finance charges calculated in accordance with the terms of the hire purchase agreement marked as Ex.B1. When that was the position, the District Forum in our view rightly dismissed the complaint.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.