DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.
Consumer Complaint No. 13 of 05.01.2015.
Date of Decision : 09.09.2015
Nisi Rani W/o. Ravinder Kumar, aged 50 years, resident of H. No.14327, St. No.2, Punjabi Bagh, Tibba Road, Ludhiana.
….. Complainant
Versus
- Hinduja Leyland Finance, No.27 A, Developed Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai-600032 through its Manager/Executive Officer.
- Hinduja Leyland Finance, Plot No.194, Sai Kirpa Tower, 2nd Floor, Ludhiana through its Manager/Executive Officer.
- Krishna Automobiles, Basti Jodhewal, Ludhiana through its Manager/Executive Officer.
..…Opposite parties
(COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986)
QUORUM:
SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT
SH.SAT PAUL GARG, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:
For complainant : Sh. Nitin Jain, Advocate.
For OP 1 and 2 : Sh. Sachin Seth, Advocate
For OP3 : Exparte.
PER G. K. DHIR, PRESIDENT
1. Complainant Ms. Nisi Rani filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter as referred as the ‘Act’) against the OPs, by claiming to have purchased Honda Activa vehicle bearing registration No.PB10-ER-2268 on 02.05.2014 from OP3 on finance basis vide invoice No.14IN00536 by making down payment of Rs.27,814/-. Said vehicle on being financed from OP2, the branch of OP1 was purchased. The complainant handed over 13 cheques drawn on Punjab National Bank, Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana to OPs at the time of purchase/finance. However, after clearance of 6 cheques bearing No.374213 to 374217 and 374219, six installments stood paid. The complainant paid the balance full and final amount of Rs.14,680/- on 11.11.2014 vide cheque No.151165. Despite that OPs with malafide intentions presented cheque No.696536 dated 05.12.2014 of amounting of Rs.2500/- for encashment and got the same encashed without any right. That is alleged to be unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. OPs despite requests have not issued NOC regarding above said vehicle and as such, directions sought to OPs to return back the amount of Rs.2500/- of cheque No.696536 dated 05.12.2014 with interest @ 12% per annum. Even return of remaining cheques bearing No.374218 and 696531 to 696535 sought. Directions to OPs to issue NOC qua the said vehicle also sought. Prayer also made for directing OPs to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of mental agony and physical harassment. Litigation expenses of Rs.15,000/- and another compensation of Rs.30,000/- also sought.
2. On notice, OP1 & 2 appeared and filed joint written statement for claiming as if complaint in present form not maintainable because the complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands. Admittedly the vehicle in question was financed by OP1 and 2. Complainant herself approached OPs for getting the loan and OPs never offered for disbursal of the loan at their own. Complainant herself made representation of paying Rs.14680/- by issuing cheque No.151165 dated 11.11.2014. The complainant was disclosed that unused cheques and no objection certificate will be handed over to her only after submission of identity proof. Process of one month was required for obtaining NOC from Chennai head office of OP1 and 2. In January 2015, OPs got NOC of the vehicle from head office and thereafter, they offered complainant to receive the same along with cheque of Rs.2500/- and other unused cheques. However, the complainant herself refused to receive the same and filed this false and frivolous complaint. Each and every other averment of complaint denied.
3. OP3 was declared exparte in this case.
4. Complainant to prove her case tendered her affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and thereafter, closed evidence.
5. On the other hand, counsel for OP1 and 2 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A of Sh. Raj Kumar, attorney holder of and OP1 and 2 and even tendered document Ex. R1and thereafter, closed the evidence.
6. No written arguments submitted, but only oral arguments addressed. Records gone through minutely.
7. From the pleadings and submitted evidence, there remains no dispute that Activa vehicle in question was purchased by complainant from OP3, on being financed by OP1 and 2. Even there is no dispute that 13 blank signed cheques of Rs.2500/- each were handed over by complainant to OP1 and 2 as security for repayment of installments. NOC bound to be obtained by OP1 and 2 as and when the full and final payment received by them. In this case, as per written statement of OP1 and 2 as well as, as per affidavit Ex. RW1/A of Sh. Raj Kumar attorney, said NOC was obtained from head office by OP1 and 2 in January 2015. Proof of identity bound to be obtained by OP1 and 2 at the time of sanction and disbursal of the loan and as such, fresh proof of identity of complainant was not required for handing over the NOC and unused cheques.
8. Receipt Ex. C5 has been proved to show as if amount of Rs.14,680/- paid in lump sum by complainant to OP1 and 2 on 11.11.2014. It was after such payment that NOC was procured by OP1 and 2 from the head office. Despite this, encashment of cheque No.696536 got done by OP1 and 2 from the account of complainant, as revealed by the relevant entry of 05.12.2014 in passbook Ex. C4. As this amount was got through encashment of cheque in excess of the amount payable by complainant and that is why refund of the same through demand draft was contemplated by OP1 and 2. Sh. Sachin Seth, Advocate for OP1 and 2 today suffered a statement that demand draft of Rs.2500/- dated 03.02.2015, copy of which is Ex. OP2, was offered in January/February 2015 to complainant, but this complaint filed before that. Even Sh. Sachin Seth, Advocate claims that NOC dated 22.01.2015 was offered to be handed over to complainant in January/February 2015, but that fact has been denied by the complainant. The date of such offer is not mentioned. Moreover no written intimation of such offer sent by OP1 and 2 to complainant and as such, plea qua such offer is not sustainable.
9. As OP1 and 2 after receipt of full and final amount have got excess amount of Rs.2500/- through encashment of cheque dated 05.12.2014 referred above and as such, they are entitled to return back this amount of Rs.2500/- to complainant. Besides OP1 and 2 are responsible to hand over NOC of the vehicle in question to the complainant because she had paid the whole of loan amount. Despite that the same is not done and that is why the complainant has to file the complaint, due to which, she has suffered mental agony and harassment. Deficiency in service on the part of OP1 & 2 as such is there and as such, complaint deserves to be allowed.
10. As a sequel of above discussion, present complaint is allowed with directions to OP1 and 2 to return back the amount of Rs.2500/- of cheque bearing No.696536 dated 05.12.2014, withdrawn by them illegally, with interest @8% per annum on this amount from 06.12.2014 till return of the amount. Further OP1 and 2 are directed to hand over remaining unused cheques bearing No.696531; 696532 and 374218 to complainant within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. Even OP1 and 2 are required to hand over NOC of the Activa vehicle in question to complainant after obtaining from the head office within 60 days of receipt of copy of this order. Compensation of Rs.5,000/- on account of mental harassment and agony and litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/- more allowed in favour of complainant and against the OP1 and 2. Payment of these amounts be made by OP1 and 2 within 30 days from receipt of copy of the order, which be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules.
11. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
(Sat Paul Garg) (G.K.Dhir)
Member President
Announced in Open Forum.
Dated:09.09.2015.
Gobind Ram
