Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/649/2018

KM Ruby - Complainant(s)

Versus

Aadhar Housing Finance Limited - Opp.Party(s)

GS Ahluwalia

17 Aug 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/649/2018
Date of Institution	:	12/12/2018
Date of Decision	:	17/08/2020

 

1. KM Ruby w/o Shri Dharambeer Singh
2. Dharambeer Singh s/o Shri Ved Pal Singh

Construction of House No.15, Village Behlolpur, Backside 39 West City, Kharar, SAS Nagar-Mohali.

Present : r/o #1582, Sector-52, UT, Chandigarh.

… Complainants

V E R S U S

Aadhar Housing Finance Limited, having its office at SCO No.23, SSN Towers, 2^nd Floor, Ambala-Zirakpur Road, Near Corporation Bank, Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar-140603.

… Opposite Party

CORAM :	SHRI RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. G.S. Ahluwalia, Counsel for complainants
	:	Sh. Devinder Singh, Vice Counsel for Sh. Mohit Sareen, Counsel for OP.

 

Per Rattan Singh Thakur, President

1.      The allegations, as contained in the consumer complaint are, complainants had raised a loan of Rs.15,62,107/- from the OP on 27.2.2017. Accordingly, the EMI of Rs.16,652/- was fixed which was being regularly paid. However, unfortunately on 19.9.2017, due to sudden fire in the house of the complainants, valuable articles were burnt and the complainants came under financial constraint and could not continue with the installments.  On notice issued, it was replied and later on the installments were paid.  However, the OP imposed certain penalties. It is the case of the complainants on various dates in the year 2017-18 cash totaling to Rs.65,500/- was handed over by them to the employees of the OP namely S/Sh. Narinder and Avinash Sharma. However, the complainants came to know the said amount has not been accounted for in their loan account. The complainants alleged, OP practiced fraud upon them and indulged in unfair trade practice. Hence, the complainants filed the present consumer complaint for directing the OP to credit the amount of Rs.65,500/- in their loan account; pay compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses. 
2.     OP contested the consumer complaint, filed its written reply and, inter alia, raised preliminary objections of consumer complaint being not maintainable as no breach of the terms and conditions of the agreement has been pleaded.  It is the case, whatever EMIs were deposited from time to time by the complainants, same had been accounted for in their loan account.  Denied any cash was deposited with the employees of the OP. On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended.
3.     Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
4.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. After scanning of record, our findings are as under:-
6.     Per pleadings of the parties and the contentions raised, claim of the complainants is employees of the OP namely S/Sh. Narinder and Avinash Sharma on different dates and month had received total sum of Rs.65,500/- in cash and receipt was not issued and it was claimed same would be issued later on. The OP disowned any such action on its behalf by its employees/agents qua receipt of the amount. Hence, this had necessitated to implead aforesaid S/Sh. Narinder and Avinash Sharma as OPs 2 & 3 in the present consumer complaint to give support to the version of the complainants. If the said S/Sh. Narinder and Avinash Sharma were not authorised to receive payment in cash then it was their personal responsibility to account for the amount, if any received by them.  However, in their absence i.e. to say non impleading as a party to the consumer complaint, this consumer complaint could not be adjudicated upon in an effective manner. 
7.     It is the own case of the complainants, as referred in the consumer complaint, amount in cash was paid on different dates/month i.e. to say in the year 2017 and 2018 and the amount was deposited in cash with the employees of the OP as referred supra i.e, 20000 + 17000 + 8500 + 20000 meaning thereby it was deposited on different month and dates and it is the case of the OP at the end of the month, the statement of the amount deposited/credited used to be supplied to the complainants. To this effect, statement of account also placed on record. If it is the case, then how complainants foresighted amount paid in cash had not been credited in their account. If the installments were paid in cash and at the end of the month when the statement was supplied, the complainants could have discovered the same that the amount deposited in cash has not been credited in their loan account.
8.     Per perusal of the pleadings of the parties as well as the evidence led in the form of affidavits, it is the case present consumer complaint was filed by the complainants on receipt of demand notice as the cheque issued by the complainants was dishonoured and consequently the OP intended to file a criminal complaint for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the learned JMIC concerned. Now, the criminal complaint appears to have been filed.  With a view to ward off the liability, the present consumer complaint seems to have been filed. If any fraud was played as ante dated cheque was allegedly issued by the complainants, such plea could be set up during the pendency of the criminal complaint before the learned JMIC concerned at Mohali. This Commission cannot thwart the criminal proceedings launched by the OP against the complainants for dishonor of the cheque which was allegedly issued in the discharge of the legal liability.
9.     The complainants have produced on record one CD showing the conversation allegedly with regard to the payment of cash.  We are not able to say it is a substantive piece of evidence. Even otherwise the tape recorded evidence, though admissible under the rule of Evidence, is a weak type of evidence and requires corroboration. Otherwise also, in the present case there was no prayer made for taking the samples of the alleged employees of the OP namely S/Sh. Narinder and Avinash Sharma and/or any other employee for the purpose of comparison or say identification of the voice contained in the alleged CD which was produced on record. In the absence of identification of voice, which was allegedly contained in the CD, the production of the CD is meaningless and it carries no weight at all unless the sample voice of the persons aforesaid and whose recording was done is compared by the Forensic Science Lab i.e. the voice experts.  The voice in itself does not authenticate as it could be imitated by other persons. Hence, the CD produced is useless.
10.     Per the contention of the parties, loan agreement was entered into inter se the parties and they had agreed to the terms and conditions contained therein.  No allegations were leveled in the consumer complaint that any terms and conditions of the agreement were violated by the OP. Therefore, this consumer complaint does not appear to be maintainable in the absence of the violation of the terms and conditions entered into inter se the parties. 
11.     The complainants had allegated fraud that they were cheated to the tune of Rs.65,500/- by the employees of the OP.  What were the particulars of fraud and in whose presence the amounts were given have not been disclosed at all and even the evidence on that point not led except for the mere averments of the complainants and the affidavit filed in support thereof.  Here we can refer to Vishal Roadways Vs. Economic Traders, III (1998) CPJ 9 (NC) and Manmohan Dhillon Vs. Cool Drinks, 2009 HP 248, relied upon by the OP in its written reply, wherein it was held the question of rendition/settlement of accounts cannot be decided in summary proceedings under the Act. 
12.     The complainants have also not explained what necessitated them to make the payment in cash when the EMI was being paid through ECS. The allegations contained are not believable and legally untenable. The complainants have failed to establish any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.
13.     In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in the present consumer complaint and the same is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
14.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
17/08/2020	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
hg	Member	Member	President