DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, PUNJAB.

Complaint Case No : CC/253/2022

Date of Institution   : 14.12.2022

Date of Decision    : 25.08.2023

Shamsher Singh son of Sh. Malkit Singh resident of Barmi, District Ludhiana now at Near Castle Marriage Palace, Barnala.       

                          …Complainant Versus

1. HDB Financial Services Ltd., Gill Road, Ludhiana through its Authorized Signatory.  

2.HDB Financial Services Ltd., Pacca College Road, Barnala through its Branch Manager.

3.Vikram Singh, Authorized Agent of HDB Financial Services Ltd., Pacca College Road, Barnala (Mobile No. 96462-43000).

                         …Opposite Parties

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Present: Sh. N.K. Garg counsel for complainant.

Opposite parties exparte.

Quorum:-

1. Sh. Jot Naranjan Singh Gill : President

2.Smt. Urmila Kumari : Member

3.Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg : Member

 

(ORDER BY JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL, PRESIDENT):

The complainant namely Shamsher Singh has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, (amended upto date) against HDB Financial Services Ltd., and others (hereinafter referred as opposite parties).  

2. The facts leading to the present complaint are that in the year 2011 the complainant was intended to purchase a Truck make TATA and as such, the complainant visited the opposite parties branch office at Barnala and inquired from the opposite party No. 2, where the opposite parties allured the complainant of getting loan approved and of best services. It is further alleged that the agent namely Vikram Singh (opposite party No. 3) started visiting the complainant for the said loan and allured the complainant of the best services. Upon believing the assurance given by the opposite parties, the complainant agreed to obtain loan from the opposite parties and in this regard the opposite parties got signatures of the complainant on some documents and obtained some blank cheques from the complainant of Punjab National Bank. The agent of opposite parties further obtained a amount of Rs. 5,000/- in cash from the complainant as the processing charges of the said loan. It is further alleged that after making all the formalities the complainant approached the opposite parties and requested for sanctioning the loan, but the opposite parties lingered on the matter on pretext or the other but had not disbursed the loan to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant purchased the said vehicle and the registration certificate issued to the complainant has having hypothecation of Financial institution of the opposite parties but the loan was not disbursed to the complainant. The complainant approached the opposite parties to get the hypothecation cancelled and requested to issue Form No. 35 for the cancellation of hypothecation and to return his blank cheques and to refund the amount of Rs. 5,000/-, but the opposite parties lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other and ultimately in the first week of November, 2022 the opposite parties flatly refused for the same. The complainant got served a legal notice dated 9.11.2022 through counsel upon the opposite parties but the opposite parties did not redress the grievance of the complainant. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence, the present complaint is filed for seeking the following reliefs.- 

i) To get the hypothecation of vehicle cancelled and to issue  Form No. 35 for the cancellation of hypothecation and to return his blank cheques and to refund the amount of Rs. 5,000/- received by the opposite parties.   

ii) Further, to pay the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of compensation for harassment and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.  

3. Notice was sent to the opposite parties, but they failed to appear and were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 27.1.2023. 

4. In exparte evidence the complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of RC Ex.C-2, copy of legal notice Ex.C-3, postal receipts Ex.C-4 & Ex.C-5 and closed the evidence.          

5. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record.

6. In order to prove his case, the complainant has placed on record his detailed affidavit Ex.C-1, wherein the complainant has stated that the complainant was intended to purchase a Truck make TATA and as such, the complainant visited the opposite parties branch office at Barnala and inquired from the opposite party No. 2, where the opposite parties allured the complainant of getting loan approved and of best services. The agent namely Vikram Singh started visiting the complainant for the said loan and allured the complainant of the best services and on the assurance given by the opposite parties, the complainant agreed to obtain loan from the opposite parties and in this regard the opposite parties got signatures of the complainant on some documents and obtained some blank cheques from the complainant of Punjab National Bank and also paid in cash Rs. 5,000/- as the processing charges of the said loan. But despite making all the formalities the complainant approached the opposite parties and requested for sanctioning the loan the opposite parties lingered on the matter on pretext or the other and failed to disburse the loan to the complainant. He further stated that he purchased the said vehicle and the registration certificate issued to the complainant has having hypothecation of Financial institution of the opposite parties but the loan was not disbursed to the complainant and the complainant approached the opposite parties to get the hypothecation cancelled and requested to issue Form No. 35 for the cancellation of hypothecation and to return his blank cheques and to refund the amount of Rs. 5,000/-, but the opposite parties lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other and ultimately in the first week of November, 2022 the opposite parties flatly refused for the same. Apart from his affidavit, the complainant has placed on record copy of registration certificate Ex.C-2, wherein in the column of Financer Name it is mentioned as HDB Financial Services Limited, which shows that the vehicle is hypothecated with the above said Financial Institution. Further the complainant has placed on record copy of  legal notice Ex.C-3 issued to the opposite parties alongwith postal receipts Ex.C-4 & Ex.C-5, which shows that the complainant served a legal notice upon the opposite parties but no reply was received by the complainant. 

7. It is also the case of the complainant that he continued to visit the office of the opposite parties to cancel the hypothecation and to issue Form No. 35 for the cancellation of hypothecation and return his blank cheques and refund the amount of Rs. 5,000/-. On the other hand, as no one has come forwarded from the side of the opposite parties to contest the allegations of the complainant, which are otherwise appears to be genuine and supported by various documents, in that event, we have no alternative except to believe the contents of the complaint, which are un-rebutted. It is important to mention here that the opposite parties despite their service intentionally have not come present to plead their case. 

8. As a result of the above discussion, the present complaint is partly allowed against the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 and the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 are directed to cancel the hypothecation of the vehicle and issue Form No. 35 for the cancellation of hypothecation of vehicle in question after settlement of his loan amount, if any. However, there is no order as to costs or compensation. 

9. Compliance of the order be made within the period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order.

10. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance. 

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

       25th Day of August, 2023

 

            (Jot Naranjan Singh Gill)

            President

 

(Urmila Kumari)

Member

 

(Navdeep Kumar Garg)

Member