BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.187 of 2018 Date of Instt. 01.05.2018 Date of Decision: 19.10.2021
Kulwant Singh, Age 50 years, S/o Harbans Singh, R/o VPO Lasara, Tehsil Phillaur, District Jalandhar.
..….. Complainant
Versus
1. Cargo Motors Pvt. Ltd , Patel Chowk, Jalandhar Through its Managing Director/Authorized Representative.
2. L & T Finance, Branch at PUDA Complex, Jalandhar through its Branch Manager/Authorized Representative.
….…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Kuljit Singh (President) Smt. Jyotsna (Member) Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member)
Present: Sh. Sumit Verma, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.
Sh. Suteekshan Samrol, Adv. Counsel for OP No.1.
Sh. Vikas Sood, Adv. Counsel for OP No.2.
Order
Kuljit Singh(President)
The present complaint has been filed by complainant against the OPs on the averments that employees of OP No.1 approached him and induced him to purchase the vehicle from OP no.1. Thus, the complainant purchased the vehicle TATA Ace bearing registration No.PB08CP7593 vide invoice for Rs.3,89,258/-. The complainant under pressure of OP No.1 got the vehicle hypothecated from OP no.2 and got this vehicle financed from OP no.2. The employees of OPs No.1 in connivance with Opno.2 got the signature of the complainant on some blank papers and assured him the same would be returned at the time of liquidation of loan amount. The complainant has regularly paid the installments to OP No.2. On 12.12.2001 the bullies of OPs No.1 and 2 came to his house and forcibly seized his vehicle and claiming that the installments have been lapsed. He has already paid Rs.3,17,000 + 27,000 + 15000 i.e. Rs.3,59,000/- to OPs. He reported the matter to the police, but of no use. The complainant approached OPs and asked for getting his vehicle back as he got the vehicle financed/hypothecated from OP no.2 under pressure of OP no.1. OP no.2 made an illegal demand of Rs.1,00,000/- from him and warned him, if he would not fulfill their illegal demand then OPs will sell the said vehicle. He also served a legal notice upon OPs as employees of OP no.2 informed him that they have already sold his vehicle to someone else, as he had not fulfilled the illegal demand of Rs.1,00,000/- of OPs. The vehicle was purchased from Cargo Motors Pvt. Ltd Jalandhar, which was hypothecated from L & T Finance. Due to act and conduct of OPs, he has filed the present complaint and prayed that OPs be directed to return the vehicle in question and return all the documents, blank cheques, blank signed papers, besides Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and Rs.5500/- as costs of litigation.
Upon notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its separate written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant by raising preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable. The complainant has got no locus-standi to file the present complaint and complaint is hopelessly time barred. The complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. On merits, it was averred that complainant has himself approached it to purchase TATA ACE vehicle and he dealt with OP no.2 for getting the above said vehicle financed for him with free will. The role of OP no.1 is only limited up to sale of above said vehicle and repairs if required. The complainant purchased the vehicle in question on 27.02.2014 and filed the present complaint after more than period of four years. During this period of time, he has paid several payments to concerned finance company. Rest of the averments of the complainant was denied by OP No.1 and it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
OP No.2 appeared and filed its separate written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant by taking preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable. There is no cause of action to file the present complaint. The complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. On merits, it was averred that OP no.2 disbursed the loan from thereafter the complainant has committed the intentional default and failed to discharge the liability. As per terms and conditions of the agreement and after adopting the proper procedure, the vehicle was surrendered/repossessed. Rest of the averments of the complainant was denied by OP no.2 and it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
The complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-A along with copies of the documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-12. On the other hand, OP no.1 has tendered in affidavit Ex.OP-1/A along with copies of documents Ex.OP-1/1 to Ex.OP-1/2. OP No.2 has tendered in evidence affidit Ex.OP-2/A along with copies of documents Ex.OP-2/2 to Ex.OP-2/6 and closed the evidence.
We have perused the written arguments filed by both the parties on the record as well as record of the case very minutely as well as written arguments filed by the parties.
6. The complainant purchased the vehicle TATA Ace bearing registration No.PB08CP7593 vide invoice for Rs.3,89,258/- on 27.02.2014 from OP No.1, this fact is clear from perusal of sale invoice Ex.C-1 on the record. The vehicle was hypothecated from OP no.2 i.e L&T Finance Limited. The main grouse of the complainant is that under pressure OP no.1 got the vehicle hypothecated from OP no.2 and got his vehicle financed from OP no.2. The employees of OP no.1 in connivance with OP no.2 got the signature of the complainant on the some blank papers and took some blank cheques from him as security and assured him same would be returned at the time of liquidation of loan amount. He has regularly paid the installments to OP no.2 and Rs.15,500/- for making the RC to OP no.1. However, till date the complainant has paid Rs.3,59,000/- to OPs. He approached OP no.1 and asked for getting his vehicle back, as he got the vehicle hypothecated /financed from OP no.2 under pressure of OP no.1. But OP no. clearly refused to help him. OPs also failed to give reply to legal notice and they sold his vehicle to someone else.
7. The learned counsel for OP no.1 pleaded that it has nothing to do with the finance services of the vehicle as it is the wish of the customer to purchase the vehicle by any mode of payment i.e. either by cash or by opting for finance and liking. The complainant had purchased the vehicle on 27.02.2014 and filed this complaint after more than period of four years and during this period he has paid several payments to concerned finance company. OP no.1 denied and deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
8. On the other hand, counsel for OP no.2 pleaded that the complainant got financial assistance against the vehicle in question from OP no.2 and assured to discharge liability in time but the complainant committed the default and failed to discharge liability in time. The vehicle has sold as per law In the event of default, as per clause no. 8, OP no.2 can take the possession of the vehicle or even complainant himself can surrender the vehicle. OP no.2 denied any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part.
9. Admittedly, the complainant purchased the vehicle in question from OP no.2 for consideration of Rs.3,89,258/-. The loan cum hypothecation agreement was executed between OP no.2 and complainant, which is Ex.OP-2/1 placed on record. This agreement was signed by both the parties and no one wriggle out from the same. Both parties are abiding by terms and conditions of the agreement. In column no.8 Event of Default, all the terms have been mentioned. In this column, it is clear that if complainant/borrower is unable to complete the requisite formalities for drawn down of the said loan he is responsible for the same. The complainant has not produced on record any receipt or document to prove that he has paid all the installments in time to OPs. Basically, the complainant purchased the vehicle from OP no.1 and same was got financed from OP no.2. He has not made the payments of loan amount to OP no.2 therefore it sold his vehicle as per terms and conditions of the agreement. OP no.2 disbursed the loan but thereafter complainant committed the default and failed to discharge the liability in time. Therefore, the vehicle was repossessed by OP no.2. The proposed sale notice was also given to the complainant to maintain accounts properly but complainant has not bothered the same. As per column no.8 of the agreement, OP no.2 can take possession of the vehicle. The complainant has failed to produce any document in support of his case that he paid all the installments to OPs in time. The agreement Ex.OP-2/1 executed between the parties. This agreement was signed by complainant and OP no.2. As per terms and conditions of the agreement, OP no.2 repossessed the vehicle. We cannot discard the agreement in question.
10. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no substance in the submissions of the complainant. As such, we hereby dismiss the complaint of the complainant. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
11. Copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work. File be indexed and consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Commission
19th of October 2021
Kuljit Singh
(President)
Jyotsna
(Member)
Jaswant Singh Dhillon
(Member)
