Order by:
Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President
1. This Consumer Complaint has been received by transfer vide order dated 26.11.2021 of Hon’ble President, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh under section 48 of CPA Act, vide letter No.04/22/2021/4 C.P.A/38 dated 17.1.2022 from District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana to District Consumer Commission, Moga to decide the same in Camp Court at Ludhiana and said order was ordered to be affected from 14th March, 2022.
2. The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019) on the allegations that he purchased a car bearing RC No.10-DA-7617 make Alto from Libra Motors, G.T.Road, Ludhiana by getting finance from Opposite Parties of Rs.1,48,000/- in the month of December, 2016. Further alleges that the loan amount was to be repaid in 36 monthly installments of Rs.5488/- each commencing w.e.f. 04.01.2017. Accordingly, the complainant repaid the loan amount against loan account No.2037152 with the Opposite Parties. During this period, Opposite Parties No.4 and 5 approached the complainant and told that they will get settled the loan mount at concessional rate with Opposite Parties No.1 and 3 and received Rs.10,000/- in the second week of August, 2017 and again took Rs.5500/- from the complainant, but no receive was ever issued by Opposite Parties No.4 and 5. Then the complainant reported the matter to the senior office of the Opposite Party company, but both the Opposite Parties No.4 and 5 made threat that if the complainant take any action, they will teach him a lesson. Thereafter, the complainant made so many requests and demanded his amount of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5500/- from the Opposite Parties No.4 and 5, but they threatened that they will snatch the vehicle in question, however the complainant intends to settle the claim with the Opposite Parties and ready to pay the remaining amount in lump sum, after adjusting the amount of Rs.15,500/- which was paid by the complainant to Opposite Parties No.4 and 5, but the Opposite Parties flatly refused to admit the rightful claim of the complainant and as such, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
a) The Opposite Parties may be directed not to snatch the vehicle in question under the garb of the alleged loan amount.
b) To adjust the amount of Rs.15,500/- in the loan account of the complainant.
c) To make the payment of Rs.1 lakh as compensation on account of mental pain and agony.
d) To make the payment of Rs.11,000/- as costs of litigation.
e) Any other additional or alternative relief to which the complainant is entitled to be also granted.
3. Opposite Parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as the complainant has attempted to misguide and mislead this District Consumer Commission. It is submitted that the complainant has availed a loan of Rs.1,50,000/- for the purchase of Alto Car, but after paying some instalments, the complainant was not regularly paying the monthly instalments to the Opposite Parties. The complainant was reminded verbal and telephonically for repayment of the loan amount, but the complainant has refused to comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement. Thereafter, legal notice was also served upon the complainant to clear the outstanding amount of Rs.1,44,077/- as on 14.11.2017, but to no affect. It is totally wrong that Opposite Parties No.4 and 5 ever approached the complainant and asked for settlement of the loan account at concessional rate with Opposite Party Company. Moreover, Opposite Parties No.4 and 5 never took any alleged amount of Rs.10,000/- or Rs.5500/- from the complainant for the settlement of the loan account and hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. On merits, the Opposite Parties took up almost the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections and it is prayed that the complaint being false and frivolous may be dismissed with costs.
4. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7, affidavit of Ram Kishan Singh Ex.CW2/B alongwith document Ex.CW2/1, Ex.CW3/C of Shamsher Singh,
5. On the other hand, Opposite Parties tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1 of Sukhjit Singh alongwith copies of documents Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 and closed their evidence.
6. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and also gone through the documents placed on record.
7. Ld.counsel for the Complainant as well as ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties have mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint as well as in written reply respectively. We have perused the rival contention of the ld.counsel for the parties. The only contention of the complainant is that after availing the loan from Opposite Parties No.1 to 3, during the intervening period, the Opposite Parties No.4 and 5 approached him and told that they will get settled the loan amount at concessional rate with Opposite Parties No.1 and 3 and received Rs.10,000/- in the second week of August, 2017 and again took Rs.5500/- from the complainant, but no receive was ever issued by Opposite Parties No.4 and 5. However the complainant intends to settle the claim with the Opposite Parties and ready to pay the remaining amount in lump sum, after adjusting the amount of Rs.15,500/- which was paid by the complainant to Opposite Parties No.4 and 5. But on the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties has repelled the aforesaid contention of the complainant on the ground that complainant has availed a loan of Rs.1,50,000/- for the purchase of Alto Car, but after paying some instalments, he stopped to pay the monthly instalments to the Opposite Parties and as such, the amount of Rs.1,44,077/- as on 14.11.2017 is due and recoverable from the complainant. It is totally wrong that Opposite Parties No.4 and 5 ever approached the complainant and asked for settlement of the loan account at concessional rate with Opposite Party Company. Moreover, Opposite Parties No.4 and 5 never took any alleged amount of Rs.10,000/- or Rs.5500/- from the complainant for the settlement of the loan account. But to prove this contention of the complainant regarding payment of Rs.10,000/- or Rs.5500/- to Opposite Parties No.4 and 5, there is no such receipt placed by the complainant on record. To prove said payment by the complainant to Opposite Parties No. 4 and 5 there requires voluminous evidence on record such as summoning the witness in whose presence the complainant has allegedly made the payment to Opposite Parties No.4 and 5 and cross examine the witnesses of other party in order to elicit the truth and such disputes are certainly not adjudicable before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies because the proceedings before the Consumer fora (now Commission) are summary in nature. In the case in hand complicated questions of fact and law are involved, as has been discussed in an elaborate manner in the preceding paragraphs, as such the parties are required to take their dispute to the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction where the parties can lead elaborate oral and documentary evidence and where they will get an opportunity to examine their witnesses and cross examine the witnesses of other party in order to elicit the truth. Reliance in this regard is placed upon Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Munimahesh Patel 2006(IV) CPJ page 1, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :-
Proceedings before the commission are essentially summary in nature and adjudication of issues which involve disputed factual questions should not be adjudicated. It is to be noted that commission accepted that insured was not a teacher. Complainant raised dispute about genuineness of the documents (i.e. proposal forms) produced by the appellant.”
Their lordships have further held that :-
“The nature of the proceedings before the commission as noted above, are essentially in summary nature. The factual position was required to be established by documents. Commission was required to examine whether in view of the disputed facts it would exercise the jurisdiction. The State Commission was right in its view that the complex factual position requires that the matter should be examined by an appropriate court of Law and not by the Commission.”
8. The nature of the dispute, in the present complaint, is squarely covered by the law laid down by their lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgement supra. A similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in 1(2004) CPJ page 101 wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission in a revision petition titled as R.D. Papers Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. in para No.7 of the judgement which reads as under:-
“After going through the complaint and the written version, it appears to us that the complaint raises complicated questions of facts which cannot be decided by us in our summary jurisdiction. It may be though the amount in this case is in few lacs and when we are receiving complaints involving crores of rupees, but then enormous evidence would be required in the present case especially in respect of allegation of forgery made by the complainant and denied by the Insurance Company.”
9. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the instant complaint is not maintainable in this District Consumer Commission for its proper adjudication and the same stands dismissed. All pending applications are disposed off accordingly. However, the complainant can get redressal of his grievance from the Civil Court/ or any other competent authority, in accordance with law, for which the time spent before this District Commission shall stand excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled 'Lakshmi Engineering Works vs PSG Industrial Institute reported in 1995(3) SCC 583'. However, keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana and thereafter, the file be consigned to record room after compliance.
10. Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.
This Consumer Complaint was originally filed at District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Now Commission) at Ludhiana and it keep pending over there until Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab vide letter No.04/22/2021/4 C.P.A/38 dated 17.1.2022 has transferred the instant Consumer Complaint alongwith Other Complaints to District Consumer Commission, Moga with directions to work on this file onward from 14th March, 2022 and accordingly District Consumer Commission, Moga has decided the present complaint at Camp Court, Ludhiana, as early as possible.
Announced in Open Commission at Camp Court, Ludhiana.
