Order dictated by:
Sh.S.S.Panesar,President.
- Amritpal Singh complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act on the allegations that complainant got financed one vehicle Ashok Leyland bearing registration No. PB-02-BM-9458 from the opposite party having customer No. PJ 000002490. The finance agreement was executed between the complainant and the opposite party. According to the said agreement, the monthly installment for 48 months are to be paid by the complainant. The complainant paid the entire amount to the opposite party including interest and the opposite party issued the receipt of full and final payment on 3.8.2014. The opposite party despite taking complete payment did not issue the NOC to the complainant . In the absence of the NOC the complainant did not become the owner of the said vehicle nor can sell the same. The complainant made several visits to the opposite party, but the opposite party is putting off the matter on one pretext or the other. The complainant has sought for the following reliefs vide instant complaint :-
- Opposite party be directed to issue the NOC to the complainant for the vehicle bearing registration No. PB 02 BM 9458 ;
- Compensation of Rs. 50000/- may also be awarded to the complainant alongwith adequate litigation expenses.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, opposite party appeared and contested the complaint by filing written statement taking certain preliminary objections therein inter-alia that the complainant is not the consumer of the opposite party, as such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed qua the opposite party ; that complainant is a transporter and is indulged in the commercial activities with the vehicle in question. The complainant got financed the vehicle in question from the opposite party for generating profit with the help of the financed amount ; that this Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint ; that the present complaint is not maintainable against the opposite party as there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground with exemplary cost ; that the complainant has miserably failed to show any damage on account of alleged action of the opposite party and has also failed to establish any case for having suffered any loss due to the act of the opposite party. It was submitted that the complainant has got financed the vehicle in question and had availed a finance of Rs. 7,50,000/- vide contract No. PJCGAM00001 dated 29.11.2010. The total agreement value of the said account is Rs. 9,96,000/- . Said finance amount was agreed to be repaid by the complainant alongwith interest in accordance with the loan agreement. Said amount was repayable by the complainant by way of monthly installments. At the time of agreement, it was also agreed that the complainant shall pay the additional amount in case of default in the repayment of the scheduled amount as per the terms of the loan agreement. It was also an incumbent condition of the loan agreement that the complainant will be liable to make the payment of the loan amount of any other account in which he stood borrower/co-borrower or guarantor and in case the borrower/co-borrower/guarantor fails to make payment of the amount due in any such account, the opposite party shall have lien over all the vehicles financed vide other loan account. In that case, the complainant shall not claim any NOC even in the loan account in which the money has been paid. It is further submitted that the complainant stood guarantor of the opposite party’s another customer namely Gurprit Singh, who had availed loan from the opposite party vide loan agreement No. PJCGAM00093. Said Gurprit Singh has committed default in the repayment of the said loan account in which the complainant stood guarantor owing to which the opposite party has invoked the arbitration clause and appointed arbitrator , who after going through all the facts and circumstances passed an interim award against said Gurprit Singh and the present complainant. As such the opposite party has a lien over the vehicle in question ; that the complainant has no locus standi to initiate the present proceedings against the replying opposite party, as such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground with exemplary cost. On merits, facts narrated in the complaint have been specifically denied and a prayer for dismissal of complaint was made.
3. In his bid to prove the case Sh. Deepinder Singh, Adv.counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence duly sworn affidavit of the complainant Ex.C-1, copy of invoice Ex.C-2, copy of account statement Ex.C-3, copy of payment receipt Ex.C-4 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
4. Opposite party did not adduce any evidence despite affording of last opportunity. As such evidence of the opposite party has been closed by order.
5. We have heard the ld. Counsel for the complainant and have carefully gone through the record on the file.
6. From the appraisal of the evidence on record, it becomes evident that complainant got financed one vehicle Ashok Leyland bearing registration No. PB 02 BM 9458 from the opposite party . The finance agreement was executed between the complainant and the opposite party vide which 48 monthly installments were to be paid by the complainant. The vehicle in question has allegedly been hypothecated with Hinduja Leyland as described in invoice, copy of the same is Ex.C-2. As per the case of the complainant, he has paid the entire amount to the opposite party alongwith interest and the opposite party issued the receipt of full and final payment on 3.8.2014, copy of receipt accounts for Ex.C-4. However, opposite party did not issue the NOC to the complainant despite making futile visits to the opposite party. The complainant in his complaint has sought relief for issuance of NOC to the complainant alongwith compensation to the tune of Rs. 50000/- as well as litigation expenses.
7. In order to prove his case the complainant has produced copy of invoice Ex.C-2, copy of account statement Ex.C-3 as well as copy of payment receipt Ex.C-4 . The evidence adduced by the complainant has gone unrebutted on record because on the date of evidence none has appeared on behalf of the opposite party nor adduced any evidence in support of their contention. Hence, the averment made by the complainant in complaint has impliedly been admitted. Besides that the complainant has produced copy of receipt Ex.C-4, which proves that entire loan alongwith interest stood paid by the complainant. However, in its written version, opposite party has taken a stand that the complainant stood guarantor in the loan account of some other consumer namely Gurprit Singh vide loan agreement No. PJCGAM00093 and the said account holder substantially defaulted in the repayment schedule of the said loan account. But the opposite party has not produced on record any document or proof to corroborate its version. So in the absence of any corroborative document/evidence, no weightage can be given to the stand taken by the opposite party in its written version . As such opposite party is legally bound to issue NOC regarding the loan in dispute to the complainant and it is ordered accordingly. The opposite party is also directed to pay compensation to the complainant to the tune of Rs. 3000/- (Three thousand only) besides Rs. 2000/- as litigation expenses. Instant complaint stands allowed accordingly. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order; failing which, awarded amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing of the complaint until full and final recovery. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated: 24.10.2016.
