Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/14/541

Birender Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Family Credit Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

30 Jan 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

       C.C. No: 541 of 06.08.2014

                                                                      Date of Decision:30.01.2015

Birender Kumar aged about 38 years son of Raj Bali Singh r/o 324, St.No.1, Bharti Colony, Ludhiana.

……Complainant

                                                    Versus          

1.Family Credit Limited, at Rani Jhansi Road, Ghumar Mandi adjacent State Bank of India, Opp.Khalsa College, Ludhiana through its Manager/Authorized Officer.

2.Punjab & Sind Bank, Kailash Chowk, Civil Lines, Ludhiana through its Branch Manager.

3.HDFC Bank Limited, Abhilasha-II, 6, Royed Street, Kolkata-700016.

                                                                                   ……...Opposite Parties

        Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

         

Quorum:     Sh.R.L.Ahuja, President.                 

                   Sh.Sat Paul Garg, Member.             

                 

Present:       Sh.Sarbjit Singh Kalsi, Adv. for complainant.

Sh.Ashok Kumar, Adv. for Op1.

Sh.Narinder Singh, Adv. for OP2.

OP3 ex-parte.

ORDER

R.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT

 

1.                Present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after in short to be described as ‘Act’) has been filed by Sh.Birender Kumar(hereinafter in short to be referred as ‘complainants’) against Family Credit Limited, at Rani Jhansi Road, Ghumar Mandi adjacent State Bank of India, Opp.Khalsa College, Ludhiana through its Manager/Authorized Officer and others(herein-after in short to be described as ‘Ops’)- directing them to issue ‘No Objection Certificate’ to the complainant and to return the amount of Rs.2300/- besides Rs.1 lakh as compensation for causing harassment and mental agony alongwith litigation expenses and other benefits to the complainant.

2.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that the complainant purchased one new motor cycle Hero M, make Splendor Pro self bearing its registration No.PB-10-DV-7834, worth Rs.51,600/- from Kalsi Motor, Near Dholewal Chowk, G.T.Road, Ludhiana. The complainant paid Rs.20,000/- cash to Kalsi Motor and got financed the remaining amount from the OP1, who took 18 cheques amounting to Rs.2272/- each from the complainant of different months in lieu of the installment of the financed amount. The complainant kept regular making the payment of installment by way of cheques given to the Op1. The last cheque was bearing No.945578 dated 5.4.2014 of Rs.2272/- drawn of Punjab & Sind Bank/OP2 in favour of OP1. The OP1 informed the complainant that the last cheque bearing No.945578 has been dishonoured on the ground of funds insufficient in the account of the complainant. The complainant got astonished when he came to know from the OP1 that his last cheque has been dishonoured because the complainant had arranged the sufficient balance in his account to honour the abovesaid cheque. Immediately, the complainant approached OP2 to enquire about the abovesaid fact, who told the complainant that the said cheque has been dishonoured and the cheque amount of Rs.2272/- has been debited by OP2 in the account of OP1 having account with the Op3. The complainant also make the entry in his bank passbook where the entry of debiting the amount of Rs.2272/- by way of cheque no.945578 in favour of OP1 was shown to be made. Immediately, the complainant approached OP1 and shown bank passbook with the entry of debiting the amount of Rs.2272/- in its favour. The OP1 shown the memo dated 29.4.2014 issued by OP3, where the cheque No.945578 dated 5.4.2014 was shown to be dishonoured on the ground of funds insufficient. The complainant requested the OP1 that he has already made the payment of the last installment and now he has cleared the financed amount and also requested to issue the NOC in his favour, so that he may remove the hypothecation charge of the OP1 from the office of District Transport Office, Ludhiana. OP1 flatly refused the complainant to issue the NOC until and unless, the payment of last installment of Rs.2272/- is cleared. The OP1 put pressure upon the complainant to make the payment of last installment in cash to OP1 and also got issued the receipt from the OP1. The OP1 received Rs.2300/- from the complainant with regard to the payment of last installment including the extra charges of cheque bouncing. Thereafter, the complainant requested the OP1 to issue ‘No Objection Certificate’ in his favour but OP1 kept the matter pending on one pretext or the other and till date, failed to issue the same and Op2 also failed to issue detail about the amount of Rs.2272/- debited from his account on the basis of cheque No.945578 alongwith amount of compensation. The complainant also requested the OP3 to give the detail amount the amount of Rs.2273/- debited by OP2 in the account of OP1 in the branch of OP3 alongwith compensation but till date, OP2 and OP3 failed to give any satisfactory reply about the amount of Rs.2272/-. Said  act and conduct of Ops is claimed to be deficiency in service on their part by the complainant. Hence, this complaint.

3.                Upon notice of the complaint, OP1 and OP2 were duly served and appeared through their respective counsels and filed their separate written replies, whereas, notice of the complaint was sent to OP3 through registered post on 14.10.2014, but the same was not received back and as such, after expiry of 30 days of period, Op3 was proceeded against ex-parte.

4.                OP1 filed the written reply through Sh.Ashok Kumar, Advocate, in which, it has been submitted in the preliminary objections that the present complaint is nothing but an attempt on the part of the complainant to mislead this Hon’ble Forum and abuse the process of law as no cause of action whatsoever has accrued in favour of the complainant in the present matter against the answering OP. The present complaint is not legally maintainable as per law and the true facts of the case are that the complainant purchased the vehicle Motor Cycle Splendor Pro bearing registration No.PB-10-DV-7834 and an amount of Rs.34,000/- was financed to him vide loan agreement No.1207728 and the same was disbursed on 22.9.2012. The loan agreement was executed between the parties and the amount of Rs.34000/- alongwith other charges shall be paid by the complainant in 18 equated monthly installments of Rs.2272/- each period starting from 5.11.2012 to 5.2.2014. As per the loan agreement, the complainant is liable pay the overdue and other charges for the late payment etc. The complainant paid installments to the answering OP but the same were not paid in time and his several cheques were bounced, so due to this, the bouncing charges alongwith other charges of RS.2025/- is still pending against the complainant. As per loan agreement, after the clearance of the abovesaid loan, the answering OP shall issue ‘No Due Certificate’ to the complainant. Moreover, the last cheque bearing No.945578 dated 5.4.2014 for the sum of RS.2272/- was also dishonoured on 29.4.2014 by his bank vide memo dated 29.4.2014 and after that the complainant paid Rs.2300/- to the answering OP qua the cheque in question but still other charges as per the statement of account dated 28.10.2014, Rs.2025/- is pending and the complainant is liable to pay the same. After the dishonouring of several cheques, the complainant made the payment through cash to the answering OP. The present complaint is vague, irrelevant and not maintainable against the answering OP and the same is clear cut case of mis-joinder of parties and the answering OP is liable to be deleted from the array of Ops. On merits, it is denied that the complainant kept regular making the payment installment by way of cheques given to the answering OP. Further, it is denied that the lasts cheque was bearing No.945578 dated 5.4.2014 of Rs.2272/- drawn on Punjab & Sind Bank/OP2 in favour of the answering OP. However, it is admitted that the answering OP had informed the complainant that last cheque bearing No.945578 has been dishonoured on the grounds of funds insufficient in the account of the complainant. Otherwise, similar pleas were taken as mentioned in the preliminary objections and at the end, denying any deficiency in service and denying all other allegations of the complaint, answering OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

5.                Op2 filed the separate written reply through Sh.Narinder Singh, Advocate, in which, it has been submitted in the preliminary objections that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable as the same is false and frivolous. The complaint is bad for mis-joinder of the parties as the answering OP has unnecessarily been dragged in this false complaint at the instance of the complainant. Moreover, the complainant has no role to play matter between the complainant and other Ops. The answering OP has deposited the cheque amount in the account of the complainant after verifying the actual status. As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OP and the complainant is not entitled for any relief or compensation from the answering OP. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant was having account with the answering OP and the cheques of answering OP were duly honoured. Otherwise, similar pleas were taken as mentioned in the preliminary objections and at the end, denying any deficiency in service and denying all other allegations of the complaint, answering OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

6.                Parties adduced their evidence by way of tendering affidavits and documents in support of their case and pleadings.

7.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record on the file very carefully.

8.                Perusal of the record reveals that it is an admitted fact that the complainant had purchased one Motor cycle Hero M, Make Splender Pro amounting to Rs.51,600/- from Kalsi Motors and he had paid Rs.20,000/- cash to Kalsi Motor and the remaining amount was got financed from the OP1 which was to be payable by the complainant by way of monthly equated installments of Rs.2272/- and for such purposes, Op1 had taken 18 cheques from the complainant.

9.                As per the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that the Op1 has not issued the NOC to the complainant despite receiving the full and final payment from the complainant alongwith last installment of Rs.2300/-. On the other hand, there is specific plea of the learned counsel for the OP1 and OP2 that the complainant did not pay the last installment and was regular defaulter in making the installments in time and there was outstanding balance against the complainant and as per the statement of account dated 28.10.2014, Rs.2025/- is payable by the complainant.

10.              Though, it is proved fact on record that the complainant had paid the entire loan amount by way of EMI as per the affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA but the complainant has not placed on record all payment receipts except payment receipt Ex.C5, vide which, amount of Rs.2300/- was paid by the complainant to the Ops. Similarly, Op1 and OP2 have claimed that five cheques were bounced and sum of Rs.350/- which was debited to the account of the complainant on account of bouncing charges. However, the Op1 and OP2 have not placed on record any copy of the cheques and memos of dishonouring of the cheques in order to prove their respective pleas.

11.              So, it will be in the fitness of things that if the present complaint is

partly allowed with the necessary direction to the parties to sit together and overhaul the account of the complainant by the Op1 in his presence and thereafter, settle the balance amount, if any due, against the complainant and thereafter, issue the NOC to the complainant.  

12.              Hence, in view of the above discussion, the present complaint is partly allowed with the directions to the Op1 to overhaul the account of the complainant in his presence after serving him 7 days prior notice to the complainant for settlement of his account and thereafter, in his presence, settle the account of the complainant and issue the NOC in favour of the complainant after receiving the balance amount, if any due, from the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Further, Op1 is burdened with compensation and litigation costs compositely assessed at Rs.1000/-(One thousand only) to the complainant. Order qua compensation and litigation costs be complied within 30 days of receipt of copy of the order, which be made available to the parties free of costs. File be completed and consigned to record room.

 

                   (Sat Paul Garg)              (R.L.Ahuja)

                                 Member                     President.  

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:30.01.2015

Gurpreet Sharma.