| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No. 316 of 10.8.2016 Decided on: 12.1.2021 Sh.Nirbhai Singh son of Sh.Gurmit Singh R/o village Asse Majra, Tehsil and District Patiala. …………...Complainant Versus Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd., SCO 6, Ist Floor, Chhoti Baradari, Patiala through Branch Manager. …………Opposite Party Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. QUORUM Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President Sh.Y.S.Matta, Member ARGUED BY Sh.A.S.Chahal, counsel for complainant. Sh.Surinder Gera, counsel for OP ORDER JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT - This is the complaint filed by Nirbhai Singh (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.( hereinafter referred to as the OP/s).
- The brief facts of the case are that the complainant applied for loan for combine bearing registration No.PB11BU6164 with the OP by submitting the loan application after completing all the formalities and spent Rs.50,000/-for this purpose. The surveyor of the OP visited at village Asse Majra to verify the combine. Later on he also visited Madhya Pardesh alongwith complainant for verification of combine, the expenses of which were borne by the complainant.
- It is averred that the OP took the original RC of combine issued by the DTO, Patiala and hypothecated the same but inspite of completing all the formalities, OP refused to give loan to the complainant but hypothecation of the combine still exists on the RC .
- The complainant met the OP several times to remove the entry of hypothecation of the combine on the RC but the OP refused to accede to the request of the complainant. Registered notice dated 27.2.2016 was also sent to the OP to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- but to no effect. There is thus deficiency in service on the part of the OP, which caused harassment, agony, mental tension and financial loss to the complainant. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving direction to the OP to pay Rs.50,000/- alongwith interest @18% per annum spent on account of completion of formalities for obtaining the loan; to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.
- Notice of the complaint was given to the OP who appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply. In reply the OP raised preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; that the complaint is bad for mis joinder of the party; that this court has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint; that the complainant has not come to the court with clean hands and as such the same is liable to be dismissed.
- On merits, it is denied that the complainant ever applied for loan and the OP directed the complainant to complete the formalities or any application form has been submitted to the OP by the complainant. It is submitted that the complainant was told first to get create charge on the RC of the vehicle as a condition precedent and he was given documents for creation of the charge but thereafter he did not turn up and lastly in the month of February,2016 he informed the OP about his intention to not to avail loan upon his above said vehicle and at his request the form No.35 for termination of hypothecation from the vehicle was provided to him in March,2016.The whole story of the complainant is false, fabricated and concocted one. The OP has never taken the original RC of the combine. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. After denying all other averments, the OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
- In evidence, the complainant tendered his affidavit,Ex.CA alongwith documents Exs.C1 toC7 and closed the evidence.
- On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP has tendered Ex.OPA affidavit of Sh.Anurag Sharma,defence Manager Legal alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP4 and closed the evidence.
- We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
- The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant applied for loan with the OP and completed all the formalities by spending Rs.50,000/-.The ld. counsel further argued that the surveyor of the OP visited Madhya Pardesh for verification of the combine. The OP has taken the original RC issued by the DTO office, Patiala and the combine was hypothecated with the OP .Inspite of completing all the formalities the loan was not issued and the complainant several occasion requested the OP to remove the entry of hypothecation on the RC but to no effect. So there is deficiency on the part of the OP and demanded Rs.50,000/- spent on completing formalities, Rs.30,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- litigation expenses.
- On the other hand, the OP has argued that loan was never sanctioned nor was it applied. The ld. counsel argued that the complainant was issued form No.35 for removing the hypothecation and prayed that complaint be dismissed.
- To prove this case, the complainant has tendered his affidavit, Ex.CA and he has deposed as per his complaint, Ex.C1 is legal notice sent to the OP,Ex.C2 is postal receipt, Ex.C3 copy of licence,Ex.C4 is RC. It is written in the RC, hypothecated by Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Service Ltd..Ex.C5 is receipt of Pan Agros,Ex.C6 is receipt of Kotak Mahindra Bank,Ex.C7 is important document. it is from Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.. It is offer cum loan scheme acceptance letter. It is dated 9.1.2016, in which total loan amount of Rs.10,88,800/- was sanctioned. It was accepted by the borrower and signed by two officials of Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd..So from this document, it is clear that offer cum loan scheme acceptance letter was duly signed by both the parties .So it is clear that the loan was sanctioned and the entry of hypothecation was made on the RC.
- The written statement filed by the OP is on the false grounds as in para No.1, it is mentioned that the complainant never applied for any loan for the alleged combine bearing registration No.PB11BU6164.However, he has showed his interest to avail loan upon the said vehicle. It is also mentioned that OP has never directed the complainant to complete all the formalities regarding the alleged loan or any application was submitted by the complainant. However, it is admitted that the complainant was told to get create charge on the RC of the vehicle as a condition precedent but after that he never turned up after the month of February.
- By going through the documents and by going through the written statement, it is clear that the written statement has been filed on the false facts. As per Ex.C7, as mentioned above it is offer cum loan scheme acceptance letter dated 9.1.2016.It is duly signed by both the parties i.e. by Nribhai Singh and the official of Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd., in which documentation charges have been shown as Rs.7000/-, Service charges Rs.1000/-, Mahindra Loan Suraksha Rs.4392+1250/-, Mahindra Arogya Suraksha Rs.2416/-. Total loan amount has been shown as Rs.10,88,800/- to be refunded in 8 installments of Rs.1,36,100/-.So, it is clear that the loan was duly sanctioned. So the written statement has been filed by the OP on false grounds and without looking into the documents of their own concern.
- No doubt on behalf of OP Sh.Anurag Sharma has tendered his affidavit, Ex.OPA but again in the affidavit he has stated that the complainant never applied for alleged loan. So again affidavit has been filed on the wrong facts and as such Sh.Anurag Sharma is liable to be prosecuted under Section 340 IPC.
- So it is clear that vide Ex.C7, loan application was duly accepted but some how it was not granted to the complainant.
- In para No.3 of the complaint, the complainant has stated that he spent Rs.50,000/-on the OP and he has taken the surveyor to Madhya Pardesh but there is no such evidence or document on the file which can show that the complainant has spent Rs.50,000/- for this purpose, so he is not entitled to this amount. But the complainant is entitled to the amount of harassment and despite the fact that his loan application was duly sanctioned but since the loan amount has not been paid so he is entitled to Rs.15000/- as compensation for harassment alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses and complaint is partly allowed accordingly.
Compliance of the order be made by the OP within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order. ANNOUNCED DATED:12.1.2021 Y.S.matta Jasjit Singh Bhinder Member President | |
