Haryana

Karnal

CC/507/2023

Satbir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Cholamandalam Investment And Finance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Kavinder Singh

15 Sep 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No. 507 of 2023

                                                          Date of instt.13.09.2023

                                                          Date of Decision:15.09.2023

 

Satbir Singh son of Shri Surjan Singh, resident of Punjabi Mohalla, Village Hari Singh Pura, District Karnal. 

 

                                                 …….Complainants.

                                              Versus

 

Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited, SCO No.193, Sector-12, City Park, Karnal, through its authorized signatory.

                                                                    …..Opposite Party.

 

 

      Complaint U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019

 

 

Before   Shri Jaswant Singh……President.     

      Shri Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…Member

 

 

Present: Shri Kavinder Singh, counsel for the complainant.

                                        

                (Jaswant Singh President)

 

ORDER:                    

                Complaint presented today. It be checked and registered.

 

                        The complainant has filed the present complaint U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that complainant is the owner of Tractor bearing registration No.HR91A-8815 and is using the said vehicle for earning his livelihood. The complainant had obtained a loan for an amount of Rs.7,35,000/- and the said loan was to be repaid in 60 months. The complainant had paid the installments in time but the OP by misusing the security cheque No.547214 filed a complaint U/s 138 N.I. Act against the complainant and procured false report on the summons and the complainant was declared PO in the said case. Complainant approached the OP and requested to allow him to deposit the installments and also requested to provide him statement of accounts. The OP provided statement of account on 11.09.2023 and the complainant surprised to know that in the account statement, the OP nowhere mentioned the actual interest rate applicable to the said loan and the OP is charging the excess rate of interest from the complainant than the agreed rate of interest from the complainant. The OP has got no right to forcibly snatch the said tractor from the complainant and the same is only source of income of the complainant and the complainant is cultivating his land from the said tract and the OP cannot take the law in their own hands.  Hene, prayed for allowing the complaint.

3.             Arguments on the point of admissibility heard. Record perused.

4.             Learned counsel for complainant argued that the complainant has purchased the tractor in question after availing loan from the OP. He further argued that he paid the EMI in time despite that the OP presented the security cheque and the same was dishonoured and OP filed a complaint U/s 138 of N.I. Act against the complainant and got the complainant proclaimed offender on the basis of false report. Hence, prayed for issuance of notice to the OP.  

5.             From the perusal of the pleadings of the complainant, it is clear that for the purpose of purchasing the tractor in question he had obtained loan from the OP and when he failed to pay the installments of the loan, the OP presented the cheque for making the payment in the loan account but the said cheque has been dishonoured due to insufficient funds and the OP filed complaint U/s 138 of N.I. Act against the complainant and wherein he intentionally did not appear and got declared Proclaimed Offender by the Court. Furthermore, from the statement of account, it has been proved that the complainant has not paid the loan amount and become defaulter. From the above facts, the intention of the complainant for not paying the loan is very clear and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.    

6.             Thus, in view of the above, the present complaint is devoid of any merits and same deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed. Party concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and file be consigned to the record room.

 

Announced
Dated: 15.09.2023

            President,       

            District Consumer Disputes                          

Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

                      (Vineet Kaushik)          (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)          

                          Member                          Member