Haryana

Karnal

CC/531/2022

Rinku Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDB Financial Services Limited - Opp.Party(s)

S.S. Moonak

19 Sep 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                      Complaint No. 531 of 2022

                                                      Date of instt.09.09.2022

                                                      Date of Decision 19.09.2022

 

Rinku Sharma, aged 32 years, son of Shri Om Parkash, resident of house no.379, village & P.O. Uplana, Tehsil Assandh, District Karnal (Aadhar card no.2487 8589 9488).

 

                                                 …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     HDB Financial Services Limited, through its authorized officer, opposite sector 12, Karnal.

 

2.     HDB Financial Services Limited, through its authorized officer, Sector 11-12, Panipat C.V. Panipat.

 

                                                                   …..Opposite Parties.

 

      Complaint u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.

              Sh. Vineet Kaushik….Member   

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

 

 Present: Shri S.S. Moonak, counsel for the complainant.

                Shri Dheeraj Sachdeva, counsel for the OPs.  

               

                (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:  

 

               

                The complainant has filed the present complaint u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs) on the averments that complainant is registered owner of the vehicle no.HR-45-C-6735.  The complainant had purchased the said truck for a sum of Rs.16,50,000/- in the year 2019, out of which complainant had taken a loan for a sum of Rs.12,07,000/- from the OPs, in the month of December, 2019. The remaining amount was paid by the complainant from his pocket. The amount was to be repaid in EMI amounting to Rs.42,186/- (72 installments). One installment paid in cash in advance. Thereafter, complainant paid six installments and lateron due to Covid-19 moratorium the amount of EMI was enhanced and the complainant paid an amount of Rs.35,118/- as EMI upto the month of Jun2, 2022. It is further averred that another vehicle bearing no.HR-C-9810, which was also financed with the OPs on 21.07.2022 the said vehicle m et with an accident and suffered heavy damages to the tune of Rs.8lakhs. The said vehicle is under repair in Karnal Agency. However, complainant is paying the installments of the loan of the said vehicle regularly. It is further averred that the official of the OPs pressured the complainant to pay the entire loan amount in one shot i.e. foreclosure otherwise the truck will be snatched away illegally and forcibly. On 09.07.2022 the complainant had gone to Damtal (HP) after loading the said vehicle with machinery, however the gunda elements of the OPs stopped the truck of complainant near Damtal (HP) near Pathankot and snatched way the truck of complainant illegally and forcibly. Complainant requested them to release the vehicle but they did not listen the complainant. Then complainant hired another vehicle and loaded the said machinery and spent and amount of Rs.20,000/-.  It is further averred that the last installment of the truck bearing no.HR-45-C-6735 was cleared on 13.06.2022 and nothing was due on the said truck. Further, the goons of the OPs threatened the complainant that they will misuse the documents as well as the blank cheque for covering the said loan amount illegally and unlawfully and will alienate the said vehicle to any other person.  If the OPs succeed in recovering the alleged loan amount forcibly and illegally from the complainant, in that eventuality, the complainant would suffer an irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated. It is further averred that on 21.07.2022 the brother of the complainant named Sukhdev Kumar met with an accident, since the day of accident he is in comma and in on medical treatment. He is already a heart patient and have been also going under treatment for that. He is on complete bed rest and a sum of Rs.8 lakhs had been spent so far. On 06.09.2022 six gunda elements/ officials of the OPs came to the house of complainant under the influence of liquor and started giving beatings to the complainant and his family members without any reason and also tried and threatened to kill the complainant. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             Today the case is fixed for notice to OPs. Power of attorney on behalf of OPs filed. Learned counsel for OPs moved an application for dismissal/rejection of the complaint on the commercial ground that the complainant is owing/plying more than two commercial vehicles for earning profit.

3.             At this stage, complainant has suffered a separate statement to the effect that he is ready to pay two installments i.e. Rs.35,118/- each within two days and remaining third installment which was due prior to seizure of truck shall be paid by him upto January, 2023. He shall also pay the remaining installments which are due from October, 2022.

4.             On the other hand, representative of OPs, Shri Kapil Dhawan has also suffered a separate statement to the effect that in view of the statement of complainant, company is ready to release the vehicle in question on receipt of Rs.70236/- i.e. two due installments. Complainant is also liable to pay the parking charges to the third party at the time of taking the possession of the vehicle.

5.             Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the brother of the complainant has met with an accident on 21.07.2022 and since the day of accident he in Coma and under treatment and due to that complainant could not deposit the EMI in time. He further submits that only one installment was due, at the time of taking the possession of the vehicle in question. He further submits that complainant is neither able nor liable to pay the parking charges. It is OPs who have seized the vehicle in question without any cogent reason.

6.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs submits that parking charges is to be paid to the third party and complainant is liable to pay the same.

7.             Hence, considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, the OPs are directed to release the vehicle in question on receipt of the two EMIs i.e. Rs.70,236/- without parking charges.

8.             In view of the above, the present complaint is disposed of accordingly. Both the parties shall be bound by their statements. Parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and file be consigned to the record room.

Dated:19.09.2022                                                                     

                                                                 President,

                                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                                      Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)    

                     Member                    Member