DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : CC/83/2021

Date of Institution : 07.04.2021

Date of Decision : 20.09.2023

Rakesh Kumar son of Jagan Nath resident of Opposite Shaheed Bhagat Singh Sports Club, Janda Wala Road, Barnala, Tehsil and District Barnala. …Complainant

Versus

1. A to Z Finance Company, Shop No. 42, Near Kala Mahir Stadium, Near Thikriwala Chowk, Naiwala Road, Barnala through its Proprietor/ Manager/Authorized Signatory Ramit Garg son of Ashok Kumar resident of Near Old Thana, Tapa, Tehsil Tapa, District Barnala. 

2. Ramit Garg aged 32 years son of Ashok Kumar resident of Near Old Thana, Tapa, Tehsil Tapa, District Barnala Proprietor/Manager/ Authorized Signatory A to Z Finance Company, Shop No. 42, Near Kala Mahir Stadium, Near Thikriwala Chowk, Barnala. 

…Opposite Parties.

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act

Present: Sh. DR Jindal Adv counsel for the complainant with complainant.

Sh. Nitin Bansal Adv counsel for opposite parties. 

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Jot Naranjan Singh Gill : President

2. Smt. Urmila Kumari : Member

 

 

(ORDER BY URMILA KUMARI MEMBER):

    The complainant Rakesh Kumar filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act against A to Z Finance Company, Tapa and another. (in short the opposite parties). 

2. The facts leading to the present complaint as stated by the complainant that he purchased one vehicle Honda Scooty bearing Registration No. PB-19-L-7087 from Dadu Autos, Barnala by paying the entire payment. In the year 2016 the complainant was in need of money for his domestic need so he availed a finance against his said Activa from Raja Finance Company, Barnala and got hypothecated his said Activa. After availing the loan the complainant paid all his installments and financier issued Form No. 35 to the complainant after receiving all the installments of loan availed by the complainant. 

3. It is further alleged that on 10.10.2018 the complainant was in need of some amount so he approached the opposite parties for availing loan against said Activa and representative of opposite parties had financed an amount of Rs. 18,000/- to the complainant and complainant paid Rs. 2,000/- expenses of file. The opposite parties took the signatures of the complainant on two blank stamp papers of Rs. 50/- each dated 10.10.2018 and two blank cheques of Central Bank of India, signatures of complainant on three blank pronotes and receipts, three photos of the complainant, Aadhaar Card, PAN Card and about 100 signatures on file which they charges Rs. 2,000/- and the opposite parties had made false witness Sanjiv Kumar resident of Barnala. No amount has given to the complainant in his presence. Original RC is with the opposite parties. At the time of sanction of loan the opposite parties got signatures of the complainant on some blank papers and told the complainant that without the signatures he will not be able to avail loan as this will be against their terms and conditions of sanction of loan. 

4. It is further alleged that after availing the loan amount, a monthly installment of Rs. 2,070/- was fixed and the complainant paid his installments with the opposite parties. On 19.10.2020 the employees of the opposite parties namely Jagdev Singh, Jagjiwan Singh and Jasvir Singh came to the house of the complainant and took the Activa Scooty of the complainant forcibly in which an amount of Rs. 10,000/- alongwith the RC and other documents were also lying. The complainant asked them the reason for the same but to no effect and they took the scooty of the complainant. After that the complainant visited the opposite parties and requested that when he deposited all the installments of said loan amount then how can they took away the scooty of the complainant but the opposite parties did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant and flatly refused to return the scooty of the complainant and told the complainant that the said scooty has been sold by them to some other person. Thereafter, the complainant moved an application dated 19.10.2020 before SHO, PS City Barnala and requested to take legal action against the opposite parties and to get return the said scooty and documents from the opposite parties but to no effect. Complainant paid all the installments of the loan and nothing is due against him. The opposite parties are not entitled to take the scooty of the complainant or to receive any amount/penalty charges from the complainant or to sell the scooty of the complainant. The complainant visited the office of the opposite parties and requested them to return the scooty alongwith amount lying in it and the documents therein as had performed his part well and to issue him the NOC with regard to the said loan but they flatly refused to accede his request which amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint is filed by the complainant seeking the following reliefs.-

1) The opposite parties may be directed to return the Activa Scooty bearing Registration No. PB-19-L-7087 to the complainant alongwith Rs. 10,000/- and documents lying in the said scooty and to issue NOC to the complainant with respect to the loan availed by the complainant and not to demand any penalty charges from the complainant against the said loan availed by the complainant.    

2) To pay Rs. 20,000/- on account of compensation for mental agony, inconvenience, financial loss and harassment. 

3) To pay Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.  

4) Any other fit relief may also be given. 

5. The opposite parties filed written reply in which they submitted that the complainant availed a loan for an amount of Rs. 20,000/- from the opposite parties on 10.10.2019 on 18% interest with a promise to return it back within one year which he had issued a post dated cheque as a security which was returned him later on. The complainant has been paying the loan amount on monthly installments started from 5.11.2018 of Rs. 1,570/-, 28.12.2018 Rs. 2,570/-, from 29.1.2019 till 28.1.2020 Rs. 2,070/- totaling 9 installments of total amount of Rs. 18,660/- and an arrear amount of Rs. 6,180/- has to be paid by him at the end of January 2020. No incident of taken the scooty of the complainant occurred on the instance of the answering opposite parties. The complainant filed a false complaint against the opposite parties. It is further submitted that after the intervention of police official the complainant agreed to pay the pending amount to the opposite parties. If the complainant agree to sell his scooty and after selling it will pay the amount to the opposite parties. The complainant made a forged story with regard to take over the possession of his scooty with the motive to harass the opposite parties. The complainant already sold his scooty on 5.11.2020 vide issuing sale certificate to the purchaser Antpal Singh son of Jaggar Singh resident of Kairen District Barnala and answering opposite parties managed to take a copy of sale certificate issued by the complainant. Lastly, the opposite parties prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.  

6. In support of his case the complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, copies of receipts Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-24, copy of application dated 19.10.2020 Ex.C-25, copy of RC Ex.C-26, affidavit of Shallu Rani Ex.C-27 and closed the evidence. 

7. To rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite parties  tendered in evidence affidavit of Ramit Garg Ex.OPs-1, copy of statement of account Ex.OPs-2, copy of affidavit of Rakesh Kumar dated 5.11.2020 Ex.OPs-3, copy of affidavit of Antpal Singh dated 5.11.2020 Ex.OPs-4 and closed the evidence. 

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file. Written arguments also filed by the parties. 

9. It is admitted fact between the parties that the complainant had taken a loan of Rs. 20,000/- from the opposite parties on 10.10.2018. The loan amount was to be paid back in monthly installments of Rs. 2,070/-. The complainant alleged in his complaint that he has paid all the installments of loan and to prove this fact he has filed copies of receipts Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-24. We have carefully gone through these receipts and only receipts Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-10 are with regard to this loan and receipts Ex.C-11 to Ex.C-24 are prior to 10.10.2018 the date on which the loan in question was availed by the complainant. So, the receipts Ex.C-11 to Ex.C-24 have nothing to do with the present complaint. Further, vide receipts Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-10 the complainant paid back Rs. 18,660/- to the opposite parties. This fact is also admitted by the opposite parties as per Ex.OP-2. But as per version of the opposite parties an amount of Rs. 6,180/- was pending against the complainant on January 2020 which is still not paid by the complainant. 

10. Further, the complainant also alleged in his complaint that on 19.10.2020 the employees of the opposite parties took his scooty forcibly alongwith amount of Rs. 10,000/- in it and RC and other documents. But he has failed to produce any evidence to prove this allegation. Rather the opposite parties have produced on the file affidavit of complainant Ex.OPs-3 vide which he sold his Scooty bearing registration No. PB-19L-7087 to one Antpal Singh on 5.11.2020. This affidavit is signed by the complainant himself and duly attested by Notary Public Barnala on 5.11.2020. The opposite parties even filed the affidavit of Antpal Singh Ex.OPs-4 who purchased the said Scooty from the complainant. In this way, the opposite parties successfully proved on the file that the complainant himself sold his Scooty to one Antpal Singh on 5.11.2020. The complainant filed copy of application dated 19.10.2020 Ex.C-25 alleged to be given to SHO, Police Station, City Barnala but this copy of application does not prove on the file whether it was given to SHO, City Barnala or not as there is no receipt number or diary number of Police Station on the application. Further, if the complainant moved to the police to redress his grievance then he cannot file the present complaint as the criminal complaint does not lie in the jurisdiction of this Commission and complainant can choose only one remedy at a time to redress his grievance. 

11. As a result of the above discussion, the complainant failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Accordingly, there is no merit in the present complaint and same is dismissed. However, no order as to costs or compensation. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to its records after its due compliance.

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

        20th Day of September 2023

 

 

            (Jot Naranjan Singh Gill)

            President

              

(Urmila Kumari)

Member