Delhi

East Delhi

CC/456/2015

MO HANNAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

HINDUJA LAYLAND - Opp.Party(s)

30 May 2018

ORDER

                 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

                  CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                  

                                                                                                  Consumer complaint no.       745/2015

                                                                                                  Date of Institution               27/06/2015

                                                                                                  Order Reserved on              30/05/2018

                                                                                                  Date of Order                       31/05/2018  

                                                                                                        

In matter of

Mr. Mohd. Hannan, adult   

R/o- 125, Rishabh Vihar   

Delhi 110092………..……………………....………..……………….………….Complainant

                                                                   

                                                                         Vs

1-Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd.  

A-27, C, 2^nd Floor,

Sec. 16, Noida, UP.

 

2-Hinduja Finance Ltd

Shop no. C-3, Nihal Bhawan,

Palam Road, Sec. 20,

Dunda Heri, Gurgaon, Haryana 122016

 

3-Auto Needs Pvt Ltd.

E-1/4, Pandav Nagar,

Delhi 110092…………………………………………………………………….Opponents

 

Complainant’s Advocate                            Mr. Ammar Mohsin

Opponent’s Advocate                                 Ex-Parte

 

Quorum                                                         Sh Sukhdev Singh       President

                                                                        Dr P N Tiwari                Member                                                                                                   

                                                                        Mrs Harpreet Kaur      Member   

Order by Dr P N Tiwari  Member 

 

Brief Facts of the case                                                                                                 

Complainant took loan from OP2 through OP1 for purchase of his motorcycle from OP3 (Ex CW1/1) and purchased motorcycle on 01/01/2014 after paying 53,8000/-where he paid a sum of Rs 24,800/-in cash (Ex CW1/1A) and rest amount by way of loan Rs 29,000/-taken from OP2. It had been stated that OP2 took seven cheques bearing no. 848549 to 84855 as security for the loan amount and his loan installments was fixed for Rs 2512/-per month to be paid in seventeen equal installments.

Complainant stated that he paid entire loan by way of cash whose receipts were with him (Ex CW1/2, 2A to F) and two cheques were en cashed by OP also, but at the time of issuing NOC for loan, OP2 demanded additional amount Rs 7500/- and told that if complainant failed to pay, no NOC would be given. Seeing the attitude of OP2, filed a police complaint before PS Mandawali vide DD no. 35B (Ex CW1/3) and also sent legal notice on 13/05/2015 to both OPs (ExCW1/4). Speed post envelope returned as “un served” from OP1(Ex CW1/4A), but OP2 received legal notice. When no satisfactory reply was received, filed this complaint and prayed for issuance of NOC with Rs 50,000/- for harassment and litigation charges Rs 20,000/-.

Despite of being serving notices, none of OPs put their appearance hence proceeded Ex Parte. Complainant filed his Ex Parte evidences on affidavit and affirmed on oath that all his contents and facts as evidence were correct and rue and were on record.  

As evidence was not controverted by OPs, so the same was taken on record. Even on the date of arguments, OPs did not appear in person or through their representatives. So after hearing complainant, file perused and order was reserved.  

We perused the facts and evidence submitted by complainant pertaining to loan payment by complainant. It has been stated in complaint that complainant was a consumer to respondents in para 2 of the complaint. Before going to the merits of the case, we looked the definition of the Consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which reads as under-

“Sec. 2(1)(d)-

“Consumer means any person who –

(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid and partly promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person buys such goods for consideration………..

 

Here no such goods were purchased for consideration by complainant rather complainant took loan from OP2 through OP1, so this clause was not appreciable.

 

 

Under sub clause (ii) which reads as-

 “any person who hires or avails any services for consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than who hires or avails of such services for consideration paid or promised, but doesn’t include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose.

We have also gone through the word “Service” under the Section 2(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which means “service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes, but not limited to the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy board or lodging or both”.  

 

The complainant had taken loan from OP2 through OP1 which comes under the process of Finance as per the definition of service as above. The loan amount was a sum of RS 29,000/- and the same was paid by the complainant under the loan agreement and OP had kept seven cheques out of which two were encashed by OP against installments. After completion of loan installments, OP had neither issued NOC nor returned five cheques though complainant had RC in his name. So non returning of cheques and non issuing of NOC amounts deficiency in services by OP2. As far as demanding extra 7500/- by OP2, complainant had not submitted any evidence which could be taken as evidence to prove the unjustified demand. In such situation, allegation of excess demand stands rejected.

So we come to the conclusion that complaint has merit and allowed with the following order-

1. OP is directed to return the balanced cheques to complainant within 30 days from he receiving of this order.
2. OP shall also issue NOC within the stipulated time.
3. We also award compensation of Rs 2000/- for harassment due to deficiency in services by OPs. This award shall be paid jointly by OPs.  

 

1. If order is not complied within time, complainant shall be entitled to recover awarded amount with 9% interest till realized.

The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per the section 18 of the consumer Protection Regulation, 2005 in short the CPR and file be consigned to the Record Room under section 20(1) of the CPR.

 

(Dr) P N Tiwari -  Member                                                            Mrs Harpreet Kaur – Member          

 

 

                                                         Sukhdev Singh - President