Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/218/2022

Mandeep Singh S/o Dalbir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Fullerton India Credit Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

D.C. Aggarwal

04 May 2022

ORDER

CC No.218 of 2022.

Mandeep Singh    Vs.    Fullerton India Credit Company Ltd.

 

Present:      Shri D.C. Aggarwal, Adv. for the complainant.

 

                  Complaint presented before the registry of this Commission on 29.04.2022 and put up before this Commission on today itself. It is hereby ordered to be registered against the registration number already allotted by the registry of this Commission.

                   Complainant attached documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3.

                   Heard.  As per version of the complainant, he is the registered owner of truck bearing registration No.HR45-B-2257 (for short ‘Truck’). At the time of purchase of truck, it was financed by the opponent and loan agreement bearing No.451700310574631 was executed between the parties and as per the loan agreement (copy of the same not placed on record), he had not paying installment regularly and could not pay two installments i.e. sum of Rs.48,550/- and requested the opponent that he will pay the defaulted installments very soon, but on 20.04.2022 at about 10:00 AM, the martials of the opponent snatched the truck from his (complainant’s) driver within the territorial jurisdiction of District Ludhiana, Punjab and parked the same with Dashmesh Associates Ludhiana (PB), fact is reflected from the document Ex.C2. He approached to the opponent making request to release the truck, as he was ready to deposit the arrear of installment and they raise the demand of Rs.14,000/- allegedly incurred by the opponent while taking the truck into possession and he is still ready to make the payment of the defaulted installments and in case, of none acceptance of the amount of defaulted installments and  none release of truck on the part of the opponent amounting to negligence, deficiency in service and in case opponent will not release the truck then, he will suffer irreparable loss and injury.

               The present dispute is based on a loan agreement between the parties. Complainant has not placed on record copy of loan agreement between the parties for the perusal of the Commission to know the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. This is a patent defect in the evidence of the complainant. Furthermore, the registration card Ex.C1 of the truck shows the truck was hypothecated with the opponent and once, there is any dispute between the parties, ensured from the loan agreement, between the loanee and the loaner then, it cannot be termed deficiency in service and rather, complainant is required to knock the doors of appropriate Forum envisaged in the loan agreement. Furthermore, on the basis of the record, it is not the opponent who committed deficiency in service rather as per the own version of the complainant, incorporated in para no.3 of the complaint, he defaulted in payment of two installments of loan. Default in loan installments by the complainant, means, he failed to perform his part of the loan agreement and for his own fault, he cannot blame the opponent. So, it is not case of deficiency in service.  The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed, leaving the complainant to bear his own costs of litigation. However, complainant shall be at liberty to raise his grievance before the appropriate Forum or the Court. File be consigned to records.

 

                                                                             President,

                                                                             DCDRC, YNR,

         L. Member.                                                  04.05.2022

Typed by: Jitender Sharma, Steno.