Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/503

Binder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Au finance(India) Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Kirpal Singh Adv.

06 Sep 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA

 

Consumer Complaint No.503 of 25.08.2015

Date of Decision        :   06.09.2016

 

Binder Singh son of Sh.Dev Singh, resident of House No.2077/78, Gali No.9, Arjun Nagar, Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

Versus 

 

1.Au Financiers (India) Limited 19-A, Dhuleshwar Garden, Ajmer Road, Jaipur-302001, through its Managing Director.

2.Managing Director of Au Financiers (India) Limited 19-A, Dhuleshwar Garden, Ajmer Road, Jaipur-302001.

3.Branch Manager of Au Financiers (India) Limited, Branch Office at B-21-14425, BCM Complex, Kalsi Nagar, Dholewal, Ludhiana.

..…Opposite parties

 

 

(Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH.KARNAIL SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant                     :       Sh.Kirpal Singh, Advocate

For OPs                        :        Sh.Hari Om Jindal, Advocate

 

PER G.K DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                          Complainant contracted loan of Rs.6 lac from Ops through loan account No.AU 130180712 for the purchase of Tipper bearing registration No.HR-37-C-5811 through branch office, Ludhiana. Complainant had been paying the installments regularly. In April, 2015, the complainant approached OPs for foreclosure and OPs informed the complainant that foreclosure amount is Rs.2,27,894.82P. Thereafter, complainant handed over cheque No.094406 of that amount to OPs, who issued receipt No.2963415 dated 15.4.2015. Receipt qua acceptance of cheque was issued by Smt.Rajinder Kaur having executive code No.109254 at Ludhiana. At the time of foreclosure of the loan amount, OP company promised to issue the ‘No Dues Certificate’, but thereafter the same was not issued, despite repeated requests and as such, the same alleged to be an act of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. In view of this, compensation for mental harassment of Rs.1 lac and legal expenses of Rs.22,000/- claimed. Even directions sought to be issued against Ops for calling upon them to issue the ‘No Due Certificate’ at earliest.

2.                In joint written statement filed by OPs, it is claimed that the complaint is filed for ulterior motive for harassing the OPs and for avoiding payment of balance amount; complaint bad for mis-joinder of parties because OP2 and Op3 have been unnecessarily impleaded; complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands; complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint and even the complainant is estopped by his act and conduct from filing the present complaint. It is admitted that the complainant availed vehicle loan to the tune of Rs.6 lac from OPs and the same was repayable in 36 equal monthly installments of Rs.22,230/-. Admittedly, the complainant approached OPs in April 2015 and deposited amount of Rs.2,27,894.82P vide cheque No.094406 dated 15.4.2015. However that amount was paid out of the total due amount of Rs.2,98,482.76P, qua which the information was duly conveyed to the complainant through letter dated 9.4.2015. Vide that letter of 9.4.2015, complainant was informed that an amount of Rs.70,587.94P is outstanding against him and no due certificate will be issued only after payment of the said amount, besides the foreclosure amount. Frivolous notice alleged to be issued by the complainant to the Ops. That was duly replied by the OPs for informing the complainant as if amount of Rs.81,548/- is due against him till 8.7.2015. That amount has not been deposited, but this false complaint alleged to be filed, despite the fact that complainant himself is the defaulter. Each and every other averment of the complaint denied.

3.                Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and then his counsel closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, Sh.Amandeep Saini, authorized representative of Ops along with Sh.Hari Om Jindal, Advocate tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Amandeep Saini along with documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 along with affidavit Ex.RB of Smt.Rajinder Kaur of OP company and thereafter, evidence closed.

5.                          Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties, but oral arguments alone addressed and were heard. Records gone through minutely. 

6.                 It is vehemently contended by counsel for the complainant that the complainant has paid the entire amount through receipt Ex.C1 and as such, no due certificate should have been issued by OPs to the complainant. After going through receipt Ex.C1=Ex.R3, it is made out that cheque of amount of Rs.2,27,894.82P was deposited with Smt.Rajinder Kaur bearing executive code No.109254. In this receipt Ex.C1=Ex.R3, it is mentioned that amount of Rs.2,27,894.82P received as foreclosure amount. Signature of one Gurdeep Singh is there on this receipt on behalf of the customer. Affidavit of Gurdeep Singh has not been produced by the complainant nor the complainant disclosed that he sent the cheque through Gurdeep Singh. Rather, in para no.2 of the complaint, it is mentioned that the complainant paid cheque No.099406, which was acknowledged by Smt.Rajinder Kaur with above executive code for issue of this receipt.

7.                Smt. Rajinder Kaur submitted her affidavit Ex.RB for claiming that one person in the name of Gurdeep Singh approached Op company for depositing Rs.2,27,894.82P vide cheque No.094406, out of the total due amount of Rs.2,98,482.76P and that is why receipt was issued by duly informing the complainant that amount of Rs.70,587.94P stands due until 9.4.2015 in the loan account of the complainant, even after payment of such foreclosure amount. Contents of affidavit Ex.RB of Smt.Rajinder Kaur as such remained unrebutted, particularly when Gurdeep Singh, through whom the cheque tendered, has not been examined and nor his name mentioned in the complaint as depositor of this cheque. Receipt Ex.C1=Ex.R3 is of date 15.4.2015, but before that letter Ex.R2 of date 9.4.2015 was issued by the OPs to the complainant for informing him that      due amount is Rs.2,98,482.76P. This intimation through Ex.R2                      was submitted to the complainant in response to his request for pre-payment of the due loan account. If such intimation Ex.R2 was given six days in advance to issue of receipt Ex.C1=Ex.R3, then certainly contents of affidavit of Smt.Rajinder Kaur are correct that amount of Rs.70,587.74P was outstanding due against the complainant even on prepayment of Rs.2,27,894.82P deposited through receipt Ex.C1=Ex.R3. It is consistent stand of OPs that even after receipt of foreclosure amount of Rs.2,27,894.82P, an amount of Rs.81,548/- stand due against the complainant towards OPs as on 8.7.2015 and that stand of OPs get due corroboration from the contents of Ex.R4 as well as affidavit Ex.RB of Smt.Rajinder kaur, who acknowledged the cheque sent through Gurdeep Singh by the complainant. So, in view of mention of foreclosure amount of Rs.2,27,894.82P in Ex.C1=Ex.R3, it is obvious that the said amount was deposited as foreclosure amount through cheque. There is nothing in receipt Ex.C1=Ex.R3 to specify that this foreclosure amount will clear the entire loan amount of the complainant. When such specification not made in  Ex.C1=Ex.R3, then certainly in view of the consistent stand of OPs taken in pleadings and proof  as well as in reply to the notice, contents of affidavit Ex.RB of Smt.Rajinder Kaur are correct that she disclosed the complainant as if Rs.70,584.94P still stands due against the complainant towards Ops, even on payment of above referred amount through receipt Ex.C1=Ex.R3. So, correct facts are brought on record by OPs and the complainant has suppressed the facts in that respect. As the complainant still to pay the balance outstanding loan amount including interest as mentioned in the written statement and in the reply to the notice and as such, action of non issue of no due certificate does not amount to deficiency in service or adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. Rather, the complainant will be entitled to no due certificate after the payment of entire contracted loan amount with accrued interest only.

8.                Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, complaint dismissed by leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

9.                File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                                       (Karnail Singh)                            (G.K.Dhir)

                                   Member                                            President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:06.09.2016

Gobind Sharma.