Complainants Hari Chand and Jiwan Mashi through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) have prayed that the necessary directions may kindly be issued to the opposite parties not to raise any demand of money against the loan taken by them for their car ‘Hundai i 10’ and the opposite party be burdened with an amount of Rs.60,000/- for claiming harassment to them. Complainants have also claimed Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses all in the interest of justice.
2. The case of the complainants in brief is that complainant No.1 had purchased a car/vehicle in the month of April, 2011 “Hundai i 10 Magna” and for getting the same financed he approached the opposite party No.1 along with complainant No.2 who was the guarantor and the above said proposal was accepted by the opposite parties and as such complainants are the consumers of the opposite parties. It was pleaded that opposite party No.1 provided finance for purchasing the above said vehicle and the same was duly purchased by him in his name. Paper work between the parties were duly executed and after about three months of the purchase of the said vehicle opposite party No.1 informed the complainant that due to some reasons complainant No.1 would be considered as guarantor and complainant no.2 would be considered as loanee whereas the car was purchased by complainant No.1 in his name. It was pleaded that payments of the installments were regularly made by complainant No.1 and after full and final payment which were made within six months of the purchase opposite party No.1 issued no objection certificate along with FORM No.35 regarding notice of termination of Hire/Purchase/Lease/Hypothecation and the same were duly terminated by the transport authorities. It was further pleaded that complainant was surprised when he received a letter dated 6.2.2013 wherein it was mentioned that he had to pay an amount of Rs.2,13,120/- to the opposite party. After receiving the said letter both the complainants approached the opposite party no.1 and requested their officials that they have already made the payment of dues of loan in question and they were told them that due to some mistake this letter had been issued and they would not be harassed in future. It was also pleaded that again opposite party sent a letter dated 11.3.2015 to the complainant No.2 in which they informed that he was in default for the loan in question and as such they were going to refer the matter to arbitration and this had caused a great mental harassment to the complainant because they were not defaulter. It was next pleaded that the cause of action had arisen when opposite party sent a letter dated11.3.2015 to the complainant No.2 wherein they refused to admit legal and genuine claim of the complainant, hence this complaint.
3. Notice of the complaint was served upon the opposite parties who appeared through their counsels and filed their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable; that no cause of action arises to the complainant for filing the present complaint; that complainant had not come to the Forum with clean hands and concealed the material facts from this Ld. Forum; that complainant is liable to pay exemplary costs to filing the false and frivolous complaint and that the jurisdiction of this Ld. Forum had been barred as the parties had agreed to raise all the issued and disputes before the arbitrator as per agreement. On merits, it was stated that Jeewan Masih had got financed a vehicle vide proposal No.PG/0041/C/10/000169 in the month of Sept. 2011 from the opposite party for the loan amount of Rs.2,40,000/- on interest basis which was to be paid by the complainant No.2 in 36 equal installments of Rs.8700/- per month. Complainant No.2 had also signed the loan agreement. It was further stated that complainant No.2 was loanee who was the habitual defaulter of paying the loan installments and other charges. It was admitted that opposite party had sent a letter dated 6.2.2013 to the complainant No.2 regarding referring the matter to arbitration in terms of the relevant arbitration agreement as the complainant No.2 was loanee and was not paying the installments regularly. It was also admitted that opposite party had sent a letter dated 11.3.2015 to the complainant No.2 for the above mentioned reasons. It was stated that letter dated 11.3.2015 was issued to the complainant No.2 and demanded only that amount which were due towards the complainant No.2 as per the agreement of loan and as per law. All other averments made in the compliant have been denied and lastly the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
- Complainant had tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1, affidavit of Jiwan Masih Ex.C7 along with documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C6 and closed his evidence.
- Counsel for the opposite parties had tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Sukhveer Singh Ex.OP-1 along with documents Ex.OP-2 and Ex.OP-3 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite parties.
6. We have thoroughly examined the available evidence on the records so as to interpret the meaning and purpose of each document and also the scope of adverse inference for of some documents ignored to be produced by the contesting litigants against the back-drop of the arguments as put forth by the respective learned counsels of the present contestants. We find that the present dispute had arisen on account of ‘misunderstanding’ caused by the recovery notice dated 11.03.2013 serviced upon the complainant-2 for his default in repayment of vehicle loan raised in September’ 2011 but mistaken as having issued for default in the liquidated vehicle loan raised by the complainant-1 in April’ 2011 (with complainant-2 as guarantor). For the sake of removal of all ambiguity it is clarified (even at the cost of repetition) that one vehicle loan was raised (Ex.C1 & Ex.C2) by the complainant-1 (with complainant-2 as ‘guarantor) from the OP1 financers in April’ 2011 that stood liquidated (Ex.C4 & C5) in full and the misleading notice Ex.C3 did not pertain to the above liquidated Loan. However, the complainant -2 raised another vehicle loan in September’ 2011 and the default notices pertained to this very Loan (in default) but were mistaken as pertaining to the first Loan to the complainant-1 and thus prompted the present compliant. Presently, with the above clarifications and removal of the so-casted ‘ambiguity’ the very ‘cause of action’ gets vanished in thin ‘air’ taking along with the present complaint, itself.
7. In the light of the all above, we ORDER for the dismissal of the present complaint the same being an advent of one mistaken belief that has never been there. The parties shall however, bear their own costs, here.
8. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.
(Naveen Puri)
President.
ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)
MARCH, 10, 2016 Member.
*YP*
