BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 59 of 2017
Date of Institution : 10.3.2017
Date of Decision : 15.11.2018.
Buta Singh son of Sh. Mahi Singh, resident of Kalanwali, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
Cholamandlam Finance Investment Limited, Dabwali Road, Sirsa through its Manager/ Regional Manager/ Sales Manager.
...…Opposite party.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
SH. ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL …… MEMBER.
Present: Sh. A.K. Gupta, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. M.K. Saini, Advocate for opposite party.
ORDER
The case of the complainant in brief is that complainant is the registered owner of the vehicle Tractor No.HR-24U/9975 which has been got financed by him from op company for Rs.4,00,000/- approximately. That after availing the facility of the loan amount, complainant has made payment of the loan amount from time to time by way of installments. It is further submitted that complainant has made payment of lump sum amount of Rs.4,00,000/- with the company as per demand and the receipt with regard to the said payment has also been issued by op and op also assured for the issuance of the No objection certificate to the complainant. That complainant approached the op for the issuance of clearance certificate/ no objection certificate and requested for the issuance of the same but op always put off complainant with one pretext or the other and failed to issue the clearance/ no objection certificate qua the finance loan account in the name of complainant and has failed to discharge legal liability. It is further averred that op is threatening to file false and bogus proceedings against complainant by fabricating the documents. That thereafter the complainant has also got served a legal notice through registered post on 28.9.2016 but the op did not adhere to give reply of the same. That due to the act and conduct of op, the complainant has suffered harassment and agony for which the complainant is entitled to compensation from the op to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-. The op may also be directed to issue clearance / no objection certificate and also to make payment of Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections that complaint is false, frivolous and has been filed with the malafide intention to harass the op and to grab some money from the op; that the complaint is not maintainable at all and is liable to be rejected as complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and that the Cholamandalam Investment and Finance company is dealing in finance and investment. Complainant Buta Singh had availed a loan facility of Rs.4,65,150/- from the op and op provided the loan facility to the complainant to purchase the Sonalika tractor vide agreement no.XTRASIR00001292470. At that time complainant assured the company/ op to repay his loan installment regularly without any delay but the complainant habitually made default in paying installment to the op. The employee of op visited the complainant so many times to collect due installment from the complainant but he always misbehaved with the employee of the op company and threatened them to not to pay any installment. It is further submitted that this Forum ceased to have jurisdiction to try and entertain any petition relating to any offence committed on account of violation of the loan agreement as per the arbitration act. Moreover, it is settled law that where there is specific statue which confer the power upon a specific authority, then no court can take its cognizance. Hence present petition be referred to the arbitrator and that complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. On merits, it is submitted that complainant Buta Singh approached op company for loan assistance worth Rs.4,65,150/- for purchase of a Sonalika tractor. The complainant took loan facility from the op for a term of four years but from very beginning complainant Buta Singh made habitually and intentionally default in paying installment regularly. Both the parties are bound with the agreement. It is denied that complainant ever approached op for issuance of no objection certificate. It is further submitted that an amount of Rs.1,15,735/- is still outstanding towards the complainant till 19th September, 2017 and without paying all outstanding amount and dues op cannot issue no objection certificate. It is also submitted that complainant is never interested in paying installment to the op. Remaining contents of the complaint are denied.
3. The parties then led their respective evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
5. The complainant in order to prove his complaint has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A wherein he has reiterated all the averments made in his complaint. The complainant has also furnished copy of legal notice Ex.C1, copy of certificate of registration Ex.C2, copy of payment receipt Ex.C3, copy of affidavit Ex.C4 and copies of form 29 and 30 Ex.C5 to Ex.C7. On the other hand, opposite party has furnished copy of proposal form Ex.R1, copy of loan agreement Ex.R2, copy of schedule of agreement Ex.R3, copy of statement of account Ex.R4 and copy of letter dated 19.9.2017 Ex.R5.
6. It is undisputed fact between the parties that complainant had raised a loan of Rs.4,00,000/- from the opposite party against tractor bearing registration No.HR-24U/9975. It is also admitted fact that requisite documents including loan agreement were executed between the parties and the parties are bound by terms and conditions of the loan agreement. As per contention of learned counsel for the op, the loan to the tune of Rs.4,65,150/- was raised by the complainant and not Rs.4,00,000/-, but as per contention of learned counsel for complainant, the complainant raised loan of only Rs.4,00,000/-. The perusal of the loan agreement reveals that it bears thumb impression of one person whose name has not been mentioned against the column of co-borrower some signature of Jagandeep Singh are there is alleged to be a co-borrower. The perusal of the statement of account produced by op reveals that a sum of Rs.4,65,150/- was advanced to the complainant, but however, the op has not placed on record any other document to show that this amount was advanced to the complainant nor any payment receipt has been produced by op. So it appears from the record that a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- was advanced to the complainant by op on interest at the agreed rate for which complainant was liable to pay as per payment schedule.
7. As per contention of learned counsel for complainant, the complainant has paid entire loan amount even by paying foreclosure amount of Rs.3,47,180/- and thereafter no amount is due against the complainant but however during the course of arguments, learned counsel for op has strongly contended and relied upon statement of account that a sum of more than Rs.1,15,735/- is still due against the complainant for which complainant is liable to pay. The perusal of the statement of account relied by op reveals that still a sum of Rs.1,15,735.03 is due but however the complainant has disputed to this amount and it will be in the fitness of things, if present complaint is allowed and the op is directed to overhaul the loan account of complainant in the presence of complainant after serving a seven days prior notice and thereafter settle the account.
8. In view of the above discussion, we allow this complaint and direct the opposite party to serve a seven days prior notice calling upon the complainant to come present and will overhaul the loan account of complainant in his presence and thereafter will settle the loan account. If the complainant has paid entire loan amount, the op shall be liable to issue the clearance certificate/ no objection certificate to the complainant and op is further directed to get hypothecation of the vehicle terminated after issuing higher purchase termination letter. The opposite party shall not be entitled to charge any amount of foreclosure charges if the amount of Rs.3,47,180/- has been paid by complainant well in time. The op is liable to comply with this order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:15.11.2018. Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
