View 318 Cases Against Fullerton India
parveePARVEEN KUMAR S/O RAJ SINGH filed a consumer case on 06 Oct 2015 against 1. THE MANAGER FULLERTON INDIA CREDIT CO. LTD.,2. THE B.M. FULLERTON INDIA CREDIT CO. LTD. in the Sonipat Consumer Court. The case no is 197R/2014 and the judgment uploaded on 23 Oct 2015.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SONEPAT.
Complaint No.197 of 2014 Instituted on:07.08.2014
Date of order:12.10.2015
Parveen Kumar son of Raj Singh, r/o H.No.314/24, Arya Nagar, Sonepat. ..Complainant.
Versus
1.The Manager, Fullerton India Credit Co. Ltd.,Registered office Megh Towers Old no.307, new no.165, Poonamallee High rod, Mudrovayal, Chennai(Tamilnadu).
2.The Branch Manager, M/s Fullerton India Credit Co. Ltd., Branch office Pawan Plaza, Atlas road, Subhash Chowk, Sonepat.
..Respondents.
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF
BEFORE- NAGENDER SINGH-PRESIDENT.
PRABHA DEVI-MEMBER.
D.V. RATHI-MEMBER.
Argued by: Sh. Jitender Kumar, Adv. for complainant.
Sh. Anil Sidher, Adv.for respondents.
O R D E R
The present complaint has been filed by the complainant against the respondents alleging therein that the respondent no.2 approached the complainant for finance of two vehicle with respondent no.1 for which the complainant agreed and signed various documents including hypothecation agreement on 13.2.2012 and the complainant has paid all the installments by way of cheque and cash and the total 18 installments settled in between the parties were paid by the complainant. But despite this, the respondents have not issued the no dues certification for cancellation of HPA and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.
2. In reply, the respondents have submitted that the complainant has issued 18 cheques ofRs.2265/- to repay the loan and Rs.40770/- was to be paid by the complainant w.e.f. 3.7.2012 to 3.12.2012. The cheques for the month of 7/12, 11/12 and 02/13 were dishonoured on the grounds of insufficient funds. The complainant has paid 17 installments and one installment is st9ill due alongwith cheque bouncing charges, late payment and in this way, total Rs.4084/- is still due against the complainant and due to this, the respondents have not issued the no due certificate to the complainant.
3. We have heard the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also gone through the entire relevant record placed on the case file very carefully.
4. In the present complaint, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the complainant has got financed his vehicle from the respondents and the financed amount alongwith interest was to be paid by the complainant to the respondents in 18 installments, which he has paid. If any amount is delayed by the complainant for few days, that is hardly matter and cannot be said to be deficiency in service on the part of the complainant. The intention of the complainant was never malafide as he paid the amount of installments as and when demanded by the respondents. Further the respondents have failed to file any bifurcation calculation to prove their entitlement of Rs.4084/- qua the complainant. Rather there is deficiency in service on the part of the respondents as they despite having been received the full amount, have failed to issue the no due certificate to the complainant. Accordingly, it is directed to the respondents to issue the no dues certificate to the complainant. The present complaint, thus, stands allowed.
Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of costs.
File be consigned after due compliance.
(Prabha Wati) (D.V.Rathi) (Nagender Singh)
Member,DCDRF, Member, DCDRF, President, DCDRF
Sonepat. Sonepat. Sonepat.
Announced 12.10.2015
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.