PER:

Charanjit Singh, President;

1        The present complaint has been received from the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Amritsar by the order of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab, Chandigarh for its disposal.

2        The complainant has filed the present complaint by invoking the provisions of Consumer Protection Act under Section 12 against the opposite parties on the allegations that the complainant had one scooter Jupiter 110 cc of TVS Make from opposite party No. 1 on 11.4.2016 Engine BG4AG2135577 Chassis No. MD626BG46G3A85703 for which quotation of Rs. 57,868/- including all the charges, registration charges and insurance. At the time of purchase the opposite party No. 1 insisted through opposite party officials having their camp office in the same premises to get the vehicle financed and on their allurement the complainant agreed to get the vehicle financed and opposite party No. 1 received down payment of Rs. 17,000/- from the complainant. No bill or invoice was issued on the pretext that all the original bills/ invoice and other documents will be returned on final payment of the advance amount. The opposite party also got signatures of the complainant on so many papers for getting insurance, registration and hypothecation clause on RC and other charges from the complainant. The vehicle was delivered with temporary No. PB02-CH-5303 and promised to deliver permanent RC on receipt from office of DTO, Amritsar. Opposite Party No. 2 made repayment plan of equal installments and first installment of Rs. 2,247/- was due for payment on 7.6.2016 and on receipt of the plan opposite parties No. 1 and 2 caused him financial loss of heavy interest by misguiding and alluring him. Then the complainant approached to opposite parties to accept the full payment of the vehicle as he was not interested in finance and also requested them to return original bill and all other relevant documents. The opposite party No. 1 further received Rs. 40,000/- without issue of receipt. In all the opposite party received Rs. 57,000/- from the complainant. Permanent RC No. PB02-CX-4941 was issued by the office of DTO on 7.5.2016 but the opposite party No. 1 kept original RC with them. The opposite party’s official issued a letter dated 25.6.2016 in shape of undertaking that they will get NOC from opposite party No. 2 and get the hypothecation clause on RC removed from DTO office and then issued the original RC to the complainant. The opposite party No. 2 vide their letter dated 29.6.2016 confirmed that loan agreement terminated with effect from 29.6.2016 in view of settlement of all the payments with regard to the above vehicle and also issued NOC. Thereafter, the complainant approached to the opposite party to get the hypothecation clause in favour of opposite party No. 2 removed from DTO office and deliver original RC and original Bill/ invoice and other relevant documents of the said vehicle but the opposite parties lingered on the matter with one pretext or the other. Earlier the complainant filed a complaint No. 257 of 2016 against opposite parties but due to certain technical defects on the said complaint the same was withdrawn by the complainant with permission to file fresh complaint and the said complaint was dismissed as withdrawn on 26.4.2017. The opposite party had delivered original RC without getting the hypothecation clause removed, to the complainant but the opposite party has not issued original bill/ invoice and other relevant documents of the vehicle inspite of visits of the complainant. The hypothecation clause was got registered by the opposite parties in the RC of the vehicle and as such, on termination of the finance agreement, they were bound to get the same removed. The complainant has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to deliver original bill/ invoice alongwith all other relevant documents of the vehicle and also get the hypothecation clause removed on the RC of the vehicle from the office of DTO, Amritsar, issue ‘No Due Certificate’ to the complainant, opposite party further directed to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for causing mental tension, harassment and agony to the complainant on account of their above acts of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Cost of the complainant be awarded in favour of complainant.  

3        After formal admission of the complaint, notice was issued to Opposite Parties and opposite party No. 1 appeared through counsel and filed written version and contested the complaint by interailia pleadings that the complainant has got no cause of action against the opposite party, the present complaint filed by the complainant is an abuse of process of law and has filed the false and frivolous complaint and the same is liable to be dismissed by invoking Section 26 of the Act. The complaint is not the consumer as defined under the Act, as the vehicle is financed by TVS Credit Service Ltd. and this material fact is being knowingly and intentionally concealed from this commission. The complainant has concealed the material fact that he has taken the present vehicle under the Hire purchase Agreement from TVS Credit, the TVS Credit Service Ltd. is the owner of the vehicle and has not placed before this commission the true and full facts. The complainant has earlier filed the complaint before this commission on the same facts and now again has reiterated the same facts in the present complaint. The purported complainant has not made any payment to the opposite party, as the vehicle was purchased by TVS Credit service Ltd. and all payment were made to the opposite party by the said TVS Credit, all the transactions between the purported complainant and TVS Credit were made to which the opposite party has nothing to do or comment upon. The necessary documents were handed to the purchasers TVS Credit. The opposite party has not received any payment from the purported complainant as the said vehicle was purchased under Hire Purchase Agreement by the TVS Credit Service Ltd. and the opposite party has nothing to do with the installments, if any.  The opposite party No. 1 has denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same.

4        The opposite party No. 2 appeared through counsel and filed written version and contested the complaint by interailia pleadings that the present complaint against opposite party No. 2 is not maintainable. The complainant has no cause of action against the opposite party No.2. The complainant in his complaint in Para no. 5 admitted that the opposite party No. 2 vide their letter dated 29.6.2016 confirmed that loan agreement terminated with effect from 29.6.2016 in view of settlement of all payments with regard to the above vehicle and further admitted that replying opposite party had issued NOC to the complainant, hence complaint against opposite party is liable to be dismissed.  The complaint of the complainant has become infructuous because hypothecation clause in the certificate of registration has already been removed as per Govt. record. The complainant has not come in this commission with clean hands and has concealed true and material facts from this commission. Present complaint against the opposite party No. 2 is malafide and is misuse of the process of law. As per rule on payment of entire loan amount by the complainant in his loan account, the opposite party No. 2 issued letter of termination of loan agreement and issued NOC alongwith form 35 to get the hypothecation clause on the vehicle removed from DTO Office and opposite party No. 2 has no liability to get the hypothecation clause removed on RC.  As per loan agreement entered between complainant and opposite party No. 2 there exists an arbitration clause which is mentioned in clause No. 24 of agreement. In the light of Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, if there is a written arbitration clause and the other party has endorsed the same, in that situation all the disputes arising out of the said agreement can only be adjusted by the Arbitrator in accordance with the agreement and Arbitration Act. The complainant had himself approached the opposite party No. 2 and admitting the terms and conditions of loan agreement, he executed the same on 21.4.2016 and thereafter, the opposite party No. 2 provided loan facility to the complainant on his request against the said vehicle. When the complainant executed security forms to raise a loan against his vehicle then the opposite party No. 2 made a repayment plan and explained the same to the complainant and first installment of Rs.  2,247/- was due for payment on 7.6.2016. The interest was charged as per scheme. On the request of the complainant to close his loan account before maturity the opposite party No. 2 after getting approval from their senior officers just to avoid unwarranted litigation had given rebate of Rs. 5000/- because the complainant is habitual litigant and on deposit of settled amount which is even less than the financed amount, the loan agreement was terminated and NOC issued to complainant. The financial transactions took place between the complainant and opposite party No. 1 are beyond knowledge of the opposite party No. 2. The opposite party No. 2 issued NOC and duly stamped and signed Form 35 in name of complainant to facilitate him to get the hypothecated clause removed from DTO Office as the opposite party no. 2 has no obligation to get the hypothecation clause removed from DTO Office. The hypothecation clause in RC stands removed in office record in office record of DTO, Amritsar and as such, present complaint has become infructuious and is liable to be dismissed.  The opposite party No. 2 has denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same.          

5        To prove his case, Ld. counsel for the the complainant has placed on record affidavit of complainant Ex. C-1 alongwith documents i.e. copy of RC Ex. C-1, copy of the letter dated 29.6.2016 Ex. C-3, copy of hypothecation note termination agreement Ex. C-4.  On the other hands, Ld. counsel for the opposite party No. 1 has placed on record affidavit of Jaswant Singh Ex. OP1/1 and closed the evidence. The opposite party No. 2 has tendered in evidence affidavit of Ajay Chawla, Legal Manager Ex. OP2/1 alongwith copy of RC Ex. OP2/2 and closed the evidence.

6        We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.

7        From the combined and harmonious reading of pleadings and documents it proves on record that the complainant has purchased  one scooter Jupiter 110 cc of TVS Make from opposite party No. 1 on 11.4.2016 Engine BG4AG2135577 Chassis No. MD626BG46G3A85703 for which quotation of Rs. 57,868/- including all the charges, registration charges and insurance and opposite party No. 1 received down payment of Rs. 17,000/- from the complainant and vehicle was financed with the opposite party No. 2. No bill or invoice was issued on the pretext that all the original bills/ invoice and other documents will be returned on final payment of the advance amount. The vehicle was delivered with temporary No. PB02-CH-5303 and promised to deliver permanent RC on receipt from office of DTO, Amritsar. Opposite Party No. 2 made repayment plan of equal installments and first installment of Rs. 2,247/- was due for payment on 7.6.2016. On receipt of the plan opposite parties No. 1 and 2 caused him financial loss of heavy interest by misguiding and alluring him. Then the complainant approached to opposite parties to accept the full payment of the vehicle as he was not interested in finance and also requested them to return original bill and all other relevant documents. The opposite party No. 1 further received Rs. 40,000/- without issue of receipt. In all the opposite party received Rs. 57,000/- from the complainant. Permanent RC No. PB02-CX-4941 was issued by the office of DTO on 7.5.2016 but the opposite party No. 1 kept original RC with them. The opposite party’s official issued a letter dated 25.6.2016 in shape of undertaking that they will get NOC from opposite party No. 2 and get the hypothecation clause on RC removed from DTO office and then issued the original RC to the complainant. The opposite party No. 2 vide their letter dated 29.6.2016 confirmed that loan agreement terminated with effect from 29.6.2016 in view of settlement of all the payments with regard to the above vehicle and also issued NOC. On the other hands, the stand of the opposite party no. 1 is that the complainant has to made any payment to the opposite party No. 1 as the vehicle was purchased by TVS Credit Service Ltd. and all the payment was made to the opposite party by the said RTVS Credit, all the transactions were made between the complainant and TVS Credit and opposite party No. 1 has nothing to do with the present complaint. The opposite party No. 1 has issued all the relevant documents as per the provisions of the law to the complainant. The stand of the opposite party No. 2 is that the complaint of the complainant has become infructuous because the hypothecation clause in the certificate of registration has already been removed as per Govt. record. As per rule on payment of entire loan amount by the complainant in his loan account, the opposite party No. 2 issued letter of termination of loan agreement and issued NOC alongwith form 35 to get the hypothecation clause on the vehicle removed from DTO Office and opposite party No. 2 has no liability to get the hypothecation clause removed on RC. 

8        As such as per complainant he has taken loan and later on as per repayment schedule the complainant was not interested to continue loan which has been cleared by the complainant with interest with the opposite party No. 2 and according to opposite party No. 2 No due certificate has been issued to the complainant and entry of RC has also been removed from the RC to prove its version the opposite party No. 2 has placed on record Registration certificate of vehicle Ex. OP2/2 which clearly shows that the hypothecation entry has been removed from the registration certificate of the vehicle.  The opposite party No. 2 has also admitted in their written version that the entire loan has been cleared by the complainant and loan has been terminated.  As such, the relief which has been claimed by the complainant has become infructuous regarding removing of hypothecation entry from the RC.   From the admission of the opposite party No. 2, the complainant has made the payment of loan with interest and loan has been terminated by the opposite party, therefore, the complainant was entitled to No Due Certificate, original invoice of vehicle and Registration certificate of vehicle after removing the hypothecation entry but the opposite parties have not done so and the complainant was forced to knock the door of this commission. By not issuing Original invoice/Bills of vehicle and other documents of the vehicle etc. the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  It was the duty of the opposite parties to cooperate the complainant and to provide him all the documents.

9        In view of above discussion the present complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are directed to deliver Bills/ Invoice alongwith all other documents of vehicle and also get the hypothecation clause be removed on the RC of the vehicle from the office of DTO Amritsar to the complainant  and the  complainant has also been harassed by the opposite parties for a long time, as such, the complainant is also entitled to Rs. 4,000/- ( Rs. Four Thousand only) as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony and Rs. 3,500/- (Rs. Three Thousand Five Hundred only) as litigation expenses. Opposite Parties are directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the complainant is entitled to interest @ 9% per annum, on the awarded amount, from the date of complaint till its realisation. Copy of order be supplied by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar as per rules. File be sent back to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar.

Announced in Open Commission

20.09.2022