IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.

CASE No.  CC/52/2022.

 Date of Filing:                    Date of Admission:                Date of Disposal:

20.06.22                                          04.07.22                                 11.03.24

Complainant: Alhamdo Sekh

S/O- Abu Sufiyan Sekh,Of Vil.- Tior Pukur,

P.O.- Durgarpur, P.S.- Berhampore, PIN- 742187

-Vs-

Opposite Party: 1.Branch Manager,

 Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Co. Ltd.

1/5 KK Banerjee Road, Po &Ps- Berhampore, Pin-742101

2.Branch Manager, Cholamandalam Investment &Finance Co. Ltd.

Dare Huse, 1st Floor,2 N.S.C. Road, P.S.- Chennai, PIN- 600001,

Agent/Advocate for the Complainant             : Asif Ali

Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Parties                  : Indronil Banerjee.

Present:    Sri Ajay Kumar Das………………………….......President.     

         Sri. Nityananda Roy……………………………….Member.

FINAL ORDER

Sri.ajay kumar das, presiding member.

This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.

            One Alhamdo Sekh (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against Branch Manager, Cholamandalam Invest and Finance Co. Ltd. & Anr. (here in after referred to as the OPs) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.

The material facts giving rise to file the complaint are that:-

                 The Complainant is engaged in a business of transport of various vehicles for transportation of goods from one place to another with a good reputation and gesture and earned a goodwill in the society and he purchased  a vehicle bearing Registration No. WB-57C/7086 (Goods Carrier) for expanding his transportation business in various place of State of West Bengal and also across whole of India. And with a sweet will he approached to the OP No.1 for getting financial support to buy said goods vehicle and the OPs is an registered Financial Institutions abiding all laws issued by RBI.

                 The Complainant proposed for financial assistance to the OPs to achieve his goal to buy the said goods vehicles from getting financial assistance from the OP No.1 and the OP No.1 after verified all relevant documents to achieve the goal for financial assistance disclosed that the Complainant is eligible for getting loan assistance of R. 14,25,000/- and it is sufficient for the Complainant to fulfill his dream to buy the goods vehicles with help of the financial assistance from the OP No.1.

                 After verification of all relevant documents and the goodwill and the economic status of the Complainant the OP No.1 sanctioned the loan amount of Rs. 14,25,000/- only in favour of the Complainant and the same was disbursed to his account on 27.03.17 vide loan agreement No. XVFPBER00001944001 with an 52 installment and the installment covered period is 28.04.17 to 28.07.21 and as a law abiding person the Complainant paid all the installment amount of Rs. 18,01,635.27 only out of which Rs. 14,25,000/- only is granted Loan amount and Rs. 3,76,635 only is interest amount and Esrail sk is a guarantor of said loan. The Complainant after paying all the installments within stipulated time the office of OP No.1 issued a certificate in favour of Complainant and no due, and the agreement status is closed. And the OP No.1 after giving the said documents assured the Complainant that they will issued loan clearance certificate or NOC in favour of the Complainant.

                 The Complainant after such occasion several time visited the office of the OP No.1, but they play hide and seek policy with the Complainant instead  of providing NOC rather they took several time from the Complainant that they will issue the same after the confirmation will come from the Higher Authority and on belief the Complainant sat back with a belief that the OP No.1 will issue NOC in favour of the Complainant , but the OP No.1 till today kept the same in abeyance without any proper reason. And on 28.03.22 when the Complainant again visited the office of the OP No.1, then OP No.1 disclosed that they would not issue NOC in favour of the Complainant as because the guarantor of the Complainant was a defaulter in another Loan Agreement. And hearing the same the Complainant is fully astonished and surprised with the behaviour and the conduct of the OP No.1. Here lies the deficiency of service on the part of OPs.

                 The Complainant for getting the NOC in a proper form issued a notice from his concern Advocate Akbar Ali on 31.03.22 for getting the NOC from the OPs as the OPs have already issued no dues certificate in favour of the Complainant.

                 Finding no other alternative the Complainant filed this instant case and praying for directing the OPs to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- for compensation only alongwith accrued interest thereupon for the period of 1 year for which the Complainant suffering a financial loss and mental agony.

                 OPs are contesting the case by filing written version contending inter alia that the case is not maintainable. The specific case is that the Complainant along with Esrail Sk. have approached this OP for the grant of two Motor Vehicles loan facility that while availing such financial accommodation the Complainant along with Esrail Sk had represented to the answering OP to be financial sound and submitted certain documents in support thereof.

                 On the basis of the representation made by the Complainant and Esrail Sk. The OP agreed to grant financial accommodation to the Complainant and Esrail Sk under certain terms and conditions. Thereafter the Complainant and the OP along with Esrail Sk entered into two ‘’Agreement’’ being No. XVFPBER00001944001 and another being No. XVFPBER00003093442 wherein the terms and conditions governing the financial accommodation was transcribed in details. The ‘’Loan Agreement’’ being No. XVFPBER00001944001  and another No. XVFPBER00003093442  hereinafter for the sake of brevity is hereinafter referred to as the ‘’said agreement’’.

                 On the basis of the above referred agreement the answering OP granted two Motor Vehicle loan to Alhamdo Seikh and Esrail Sk upon certain terms and conditions more particularly mentioned under the said agreement. Out of those agreement one agreement No. XVFPBER00001944001  made between the Complainant and this answering OP and in that case Esrail Sk signed as Co-Applicant and in the second agreement made between Esrail Sk and the answering OP vide loan agreement No. XVFPBER00003093442 and in that agreement above name Abu Sufian signed as Co-Applicant and in the above reason the Complainant attached with linked agreement.

                 The Complainant paid his installments and in that case that Mr. Esrail Sk signed as a Co-Applicant but in the agreement No. XVFPBER00003093442  Mr. Esrail Sk does not pay installment and stopped to give payment his EMI, then the company again and again repeatedly gave reminder personally and also by writing to pay the installments to Esrail Sk and also send those copy of letter to the above named Abu Sufian as Co-Applicant and also to the Complainant due to linked agreement, but the Complainant ignored the same. Then the finance company watched that Esrail Sk along with the Complainant ignored to pay further any installments. 

     On the basis of the complaint and the written versions the following points are framed for proper  adjudication of the case :

Points for decision

1. Isthe Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?

2. Has the OP any deficiency in service, as alleged?

3. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?

Decision with Reasons:

Point no.1

Ld. Adv. for the Complainant submits that the Complainant is a consumer to the OPs. On this point Ld. Adv. for the OPs states nothing. Moreover, we peruse the materials on record. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submissions advanced by the parties we are of the view that the Complainant is a consumer to the OPs. The Point No. 1 is thus decided in favour of the Complainant.

Point No.2&3

            Ld. Adv. for the Complainant submits that there is a loan agreement bearing No. XVFPBER00001944001  in which the Complainant and his brother Esrail Sk. are the co-applicants and Chola Mandalam are the OPs. In the said loan agreement the Complainant has paid all the installments and the said loan agreement has been closed by the OPs. In spite of that the OPs are reluctant to issue NOC in favour of the Complainant. There is a deficiency of service on the part of the OPs.

            Ld. Adv. for the OPs submits that it is true that there is a loan agreement bearing No. XVFPBER00001944001  in which the Complainant and his brother Esrail Sk are the co-applicants and Chola Mandalam are the OPs. In the said loan agreement the Complainant has paid all the installments and the said loan agreement has been closed by the OPs.

            He further submits that there was another loan agreement bearing No. XVFPBER00003093442  in which Esrail Sk. and his father Abu Sufiyan Sk. are the co-applicants and Chola Mandalam are the OPs. In the said loan agreement account Esrail Sk is reluctant to pay his dues and as such the OPs are not in a position to issue NOC in favour of the Complainant Alhamdo Sekh and his brother Esrail Sk.

            Ld. Adv. for the OPs files loan agreement which were signed by the Complainant Alhamdo Sekh and his brother Esrail Sk and their father Abu Sufiyan Sk and the authorized signatory of the OPs.

            In para 21 (a) of the said loan agreement it is mentioned that the company shall         have a lien and right of set-off on all moneys belonging to the Borrower/Guarantor standing to its credit in any account whatsoever with the company. If upon demand by the company the balance outstanding in the Loan Account is not repaid within the prescribed time, such credit balance in any account of the Borrower/Guarantor or his relatives as defined under the Companies Act, 1956 or partners as the case may be, shall be adjusted towards dues under the loan account. In case of any deficit, the deficit amount may be recovered by the company from the Borrower/Guarantor.

            In view of the matters discussed above and considering the submissions advanced by the parties we are of the view that the Complainant is not entitled to get the relief as prayed for.      

Reasons for delay:

             The Case was filed on 20.06.22 and admitted on 04.07.22. This Commission tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders.

In the result, the Consumer case fails.

     Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is        

Ordered

that the complaint Case No. CC/52/2022 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OPs but under the circumstances without any order as to costs.

        Let plain copy of this order  be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand  /by post under proper acknowledgment  as per rules, for information and necessary action.

The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:

    confonet.nic.in

Dictated & corrected by me.

President

Member                                                                                   President.