Punjab

Faridkot

CC/15/137

Sukhdev Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

East West Finance co. - Opp.Party(s)

Mandeep Singh

05 Jan 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :       137

Date of Institution:   24.09.2015

Date of Decision :    5.01.2016

 

Sukhdev  Singh s/o Chand Singh  r/o Village Mehma Sarja, Tehsil & District Bathinda, through his special Attorney Jagsir Singh s/o Chand Singh r/o Kothe Ajmer Singh Wale, Village Mehma Sarja, Tehsil & District Bathinda.

...Complainant

Versus

East West Finance Co., Near Ram Leela Ground, Jaitu, District Faridkot through its Proprietor/Partner.

.......OP

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh Ajit Aggarwal, President,

Smt Parampal Kaur, Member,

Sh P Singla, Member.

 

Present:      Sh Mandeep Kular, Ld Counsel for complainant,    

                 OP-Exparte.

 

 (Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                              Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ops seeking directions to OPs to issue No Due Certificate to complainant and to refund the amount of Rs 6,485/- and to pay Rs 50,000/- on account compensation for mental agony and harassment besides Rs 5,500/- as litigation expenses to complainant.

2                                     Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that on assurance of OP to provide financial assistance or loan to complainant, complainant purchased a motor cycle from M/s Raunak Motors, Bathinda. Representative of OP and M/s Raunak Motors, Bathinda prepared a rough estimate of motor cycle for Rs 47,140/- i.e price of motor cycle alongwith Rs 3350/- as   registration charges, Rs 1450 as CNC charges, Rs 300 TC Charges, Rs 250 as G/L charges, Rs 150 as TN charges; totalling of Rs 52,625/-out of which Rs 15000/-was to be paid as down payment while remaining amount of Rs 37,625/-was to be financed by OP. It was told to complainant that he was required to pay Rs 37,625/-alongwith Rs 1500/-as processing fee i.e total of Rs 39,125/- with interest at the rate of 12 % per anum in instalments of Rs 2021/- each for two years commencing from 15.12.2013 and ending upto 15.11.2015. As such, complainant purchased motor cycle bearing chassis no.MBLHA10APDHK00443 by making payment of Rs 15,000/-as down payment and remaining amount was financed by OP. Complainant also deposited Rs 3000/-on 3.11.2013 with OP against first instalment. Thereafter, he paid 7 instalments worth Rs 3000/-each. As motor cycle in question was not got registered in the name of complainant, therefore, he stopped paying the instalments and for getting the same registered in his name, he moved applications before SSP and DC of Bathinda and after obtaining the RC in his name, in March, 2015, complainant again deposited sum of Rs 10,000/-to OP on 30.04.2015 and thus, uptill 30.04.2015, amount of Rs 34,000/-was got deposited by complainant towards OP. Thereafter, for obtaining NOC for getting transferred the hypothecation in favour of complainant, he made requests to OP to settle his loan account and for this purpose, OP demanded Rs 21,000/-from complainant, which he paid to OP on 16.05.2015 under compelling circumstances. It is pertinent to mention here that complainant paid Rs 6,485/-in excess to OP. After making payment, concerned employee of OP gave form no. 34 to complainant and assured him that on furnishing the form no. 34 in District Transport Office, Bathinda, hypothecation of OP would be cancelled, but in the office of DTO, Bathinda, complainant was asked to furnish form no. 35 and when complainant approached OP with request to give him form no. 35, OP illegally and unlawfully demanded Rs.5000/-from complainant. Complainant made many requests to OP to issue him NOC as he has cleared all the loan amount of OP but all in vain and OP refused to issue NOC/form no. 35 to complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OP and has caused great harassment and mental agony to complainant for which he has prayed for compensation and litigation expenses besides main relief. Hence, the complaint.

3                                                   The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 1.10.2015, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to OPs.

4                                              Registered cover containing notice and copy of complaint was sent to OP, but nobody appeared on behalf of OP either in person or through counsel, therefore, after expiry of statutory period, OP was proceeded against exparte vide order dt 2.12.2015.

5                                                 The complainant tendered in his exparte evidence affidavit of Jagsir Singh, Special Power of Attorney of complainant as Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to 21 and then, closed the evidence.

6                                                    As there is no rebuttal from OP side, therefore, in exparte arguments, ld counsel for complainant contended that complainant purchased a motor cycle from M/s Raunak Motors, Bathinda with financial assistance through OP. Representative of OP and M/s Raunak Motors, Bathinda prepared a rough estimate of motor cycle for Rs 47,140/- i.e price of motor cycle alongwith Rs 3350/- as  registration charges, Rs 1450 as CNC charges, Rs 300 TC Charges, Rs 250 as G/L charges, Rs 150 as TN charges; totalling of Rs 52,625/-out of which Rs 15000/-was to be paid as down payment while remaining amount of Rs 37,625/-was to be financed by OP. Complainant was required to pay Rs 37,625/-alongwith Rs 1500/-as processing fee i.e total of Rs 39,125/- with interest at the rate of 12 % per anum in instalments of Rs 2021/- each for two years commencing from 15.12.2013 and ending upto 15.11.2015. Complainant has alleged that he has paid more than full amount of loan alongwith interest at the rate of 12 % to OP, but despite receiving the requisite amount, OP demanded more amount illegally from complainant and even did not give him NOC for getting transferred the hypothecation in the name of complainant. To prove his case, he has produced documents Ex C-3 to C-21, clearly showing the deficiency on the part of OP. As per allegation of complainant, C-5 is the rough estimate prepared by OP and C-11 is the copy of Registration Certificate issued by OP to complainant after moving complaints Ex C-7 to C-10.  He has stressed on Ex C-12 to C-20, which are receipts showing payment made by complainant to OP. Document Ex C-21 issued by OP to complainant proves that complainant has made entire payment of loan amount taken by him from OP. Vide Ex C-1 complainant has reiterated all the allegations taken in complaint. Ld counsel for complainant has prayed that though whole amount of loan has been repaid by complainant, but despite receiving the entire loan payment from complainant, OP have not issued NOC and form no. 35 to complainant for getting the hypothecation cancelled from Registration Certificate of vehicle from the name of OP, which has caused harassment and mental agony to complainant besides financial loss. Prayer for accepting the complainant and seeking directions to OP to release NOC alongwith form no. 35 alongwith compensation and  litigation expenses is made.

7.                                              We have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for complainant and have also gone through the record available on file and after careful perusal of the same, it is observed that present case pertains to deficiency in service on the part of OP. All the documents adduced by complainant tend to prove his allegations against OP. Requests made by complainant before SSP and DC, Bathinda in the form of Ex C-8 and 9 prove that he was not even issued RC. Receipts Ex C-12 to 20 clearly reveal that complainant had made payment to OP in instalments. Ex C-21 is a clinching evidence, which strives to prove that complainant has made entire payment of loan taken from OP and nothing is due towards complainant against loan advanced by OP. On the face of it, it is clear that OP has been deficient in providing requisite service to complainant. Complainant has succeeded in proving his case and therefore, complaint in hand is hereby allowed with directions to OP to release No Objection Certificate alongwith Form No. 35 and any other requisite document mandatory for getting cancellation of hypothecation in the Registration Certificate of vehicle of complainant to him. OP is further directed to pay Rs 2000/- to complainant as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him and Rs 1000 as litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under section 25 and 27 of Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be supplied parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to record room.

 Announced in open Forum:

  Dated: 5.01.2016                  

 

Member                   Member                President                              (Parampal Kaur)              (P Singla)              (Ajit Aggarwal)