Haryana

Ambala

CC/254/2020

Sandeep Kumar Jain - Complainant(s)

Versus

Cholamandlam Investment and Finace Co Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

J.S.Walia

11 Jan 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	254 of 2020
Date of Institution	:	28.10.2020
Date of decision	:	11.01.2024

                                                                   

Sandeep Kumar Jain aged about 48 years son of late Shri Karori Mal Jain, Resident of House no.106, DWS Colony, Jalbera Road, Ambala City (Mobile no.8930101001)

……. Complainant

                                                Versus

1. Cholamandlam Investment and Finance Company Limited, Near Chima Palace, Vikas Vihar, Ambala City through its branch Manager.
2. The Managing Director /Chairman, Cholamandlam Investment and Finance Company Limited DARE House, 2, N.S.C. Bose Road, Parr 45, Chennai- 600001.

….….  Opposite Parties

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                     Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

          Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:-     Shri J.S.Walia, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.                                                                                                                                       Shri Puneet Sirpaul, Advocate, counsel for the OPs.

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To issue the NOC/Form no.35 to the complainant.
2. To pay an amount to Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for wastage of precious time, mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant alongwith litigation expenses. 
3. Not to take possession of the above said vehicle.
4. Grant any other directions which this Hon’ble Commission may deems fit.

 

2.             Brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchased a vehicle Tata Zest amounting approximately Rs.6,50,000/- (the cost of Car) on finance basis in the year of 2015, for which, the OPs provided an amount to Rs. 4,00000/- as financial assistance to the complainant, vide loan agreement no. XVFPABL00001511003. The said vehicle was registered in the name of the complainant before the Registration Office vide registration no. HR01-AM-8047 with hypothecation. The complainant also took another loan from the OPs vide loan agreement no.XVFPABL00002710376, which was payable in 48 installments to the OPs to the tune of Rs.10,633/- per month. The complainant cleared/paid all the installments of the above said vehicle to the OPs regularly and last installment was paid on 11-10- 2019 and  nothing was due in respect of the said financial loan, yet, the OPs failed to issue NOC to the complainant and are lingering on the matter on the one pretext or the other. Under those circumstances, the complainant served legal notice on 29-09- 2020 upon the OPs but to no avail. Hence, the present complaint.
3.           Upon notice, the OPs appeared and filed written version wherein they raised preliminary objections to the effect that the complainant is not a consumer; the  present complaint is not maintainable for want of joinder and mis joinder of the necessary parties; the present complaint is time barred; the complainant is a willful defaulter and never paid the installments in time and now came with a well cooked up story just to avoid his liability to pay the loan amount; the complainant has suppressed material facts from this Commission; this Commission is not vested with territorial jurisdiction in view of contact between the parties;  the relationship between the complainant and the OPs is pursuant to the contract entered into between the parties; as per clause of the agreement entered into between the parties, all disputes, differences, claims and questions whatsoever arising out of this agreement shall be referred to the sole arbitrator;  the present complaint is baseless and fragrant abuse of process of law etc. On merits, it has been stated that as a matter of fact the complainant had availed loan from the company and signed the agreement after understanding all the terms and conditions of the agreement. An amount of Rs.7,30,000/- was given to the complainant to be repaid in 64 months installments of Rs.16958/-. But the complainant did not turn out to be a good borrower; he committed regular and intention default and did never obey his commitment of timely payments. There is regular and prolonged delay in the payment of monthly installments. Delay in payment of monthly installments has been more appropriately shown in the attached statement of account which is Annexure-2. The official of the complainant requested several times to deposit the installments but no avail. As a matter of fact the complainant was in arrear at the time of filing of the complaint. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by OPs and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with cost with Costs.
4.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-5 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs tendered evidence of Yural Dhiman, POA of the OPs –Company-Cholamandalam Finance Ltd., Ambala City as Annexure OP/A alongwith documents Annexure OP-1 and OP-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.
5.           We have heard the learned counsel for complainant and learned counsel for the OPs and have also carefully gone through the case file.
6.            At the outset, the learned counsel for OPs while reiterating the objections raised in the written version has submitted that NOC has already been supplied to the complainant, thus the present complaint deserves dismissal. The learned counsel for the complainant has also submitted that the OPs supply the NOC on 22.01.2021 i.e during the pendency of the complaint, therefore, complainant is entitled to get compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him alongwith litigation expenses.  
7.           First coming to objection taken with regard to Arbitration is concerned, it may be stated here that this issue has already been set at rest by the larger Bench of the Hon’ble National Commission in Aftab Singh  Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited & Anr., Consumer Case No. 701 of 2015, wherein, vide order dated 13.07.2017, it has been held that an Arbitration Clause in the Agreements/contracts cannot circumscribe the jurisdiction of a Consumer Fora notwithstanding the amendments made to Section 8 of the Arbitration Act. Civil appeal bearing No.23512-23513 of 2017 and  Review Petition (C) Nos.2629-2630 of 2018 filed by the builder, before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, also stood dismissed vide orders dated 13.02.2018 and 10.12.2018 respectively. Therefore, objection taken in this regard also stands rejected.
8.           Now the question that falls for consideration is as to whether this Commission has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide this complaint. It may be stated here that as the complainant is a resident of Ambala, which falls under the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission as such, in this view of the matter, this Commission has territorial jurisdiction to decide this complaint in view of Section 34 (2) (d) of CPA 2019 and therefore, objection taken by the OPs in this regard is rejected.
9.           From the perusal of record, it is revealed that in the affidavit tendered by Yural Dhiman POA Cholamandalam Finance Limited, Ambala City, Annexure OP/A,  it is clearly mentioned that NOC has been issued to the complainant.  This fact has fairly been admitted by the learned counsel for the complainant.  Since, the OPs have issued NOC to the complainant, therefore, there is no need to go into the issue. Had the OPs issued NOC to the complainant earlier, the complainant would have escaped from entering into this unnecessary litigation, which has definitely caused him mental agony, harassment and financial loss. Under these circumstances, the complainant needs to be suitably compensated for such an act and conduct of the OPs.
10.           For the reason recorded above, this complaint is partly allowed and the OPs are directed to pay lumpsum compensation and cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.8,000/- to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order failing which they shall be liable to pay the said amount alongwith interest @8% p.a. from the date of default till realization.  Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned as per rules.  File be annexed and consigned to the record room.

Announced:- 11.01.2024

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President