DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH Complaint Case No | : | 174 OF 2010 | Date of Institution | : | 22.03.2010 | Date of Decision | : | 29.11.2011 |
Sukhwinder Singh son of Sh. Jagdish Singh, R/o H.No.50, Green Enclave, Zirakpur, District Mohali. ---Complainant V E R S U S [1] ICICI Bank Ltd., SCO No. 151-152, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh. [2] ICICI Bank Ltd., Videocon Tower, 2nd Floor, Block E-I, Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. [3] Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Regd. 36-38-A, Nariman Bhawan, 227, Nariman Point, Mumbai. ---Opposite Parties BEFORE: MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA PRESIDING MEMBER SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER Argued By: None for the Complainant. Sh. Sandeep Suri, Adv. for OPs. PER MADHU MUTNEJA, PRESIDING MEMBER 1. Briefly stated, the Complainant had purchased a new Wagon R LXI DUO Car from Berkeley Automobiles Limited under an Auto Loan from OP No.1. In the meantime, the loan was taken over by OP No.3 from OPs No.1 and 2. Unfortunately, as the Complainant had failed to deposit regular EMIs, hence, OP No.3 had recovered the Car from the Complainant. The Complainant has stated that after negotiations between the parties, he agreed to pay the remaining amount to OP No.3. After settlement of account, OP No.3 issued a clearance certificate to the Complainant that no dues are pending in future regarding Auto Loan Agreement No. LACHd00007767905. The relevant document at Annexure C-1 is signed and attested by Harjit Singh whose Mobile No. is 9216812302. The Complainant has stated that OP No.3 also informed him that they will inform OPs No. 1 & 2 about this clearance and his name will be removed the defaulters list. Despite this, when the Complainant visited the office of OP No.1 to know his status, he was shocked to know that his name still continued in the defaulters list. The Complainant has alleged that despite many efforts by him and discussions with the OPs, they have not paid any heed to his grievance and his name continues to remain in defaulters list. He has, thus, filed the instant complaint, praying for damages for deficiency in service and harassment, besides costs of litigation. 2. After admission of the complaint, notices were sent to the OPs. 3. OP No.1 & 2 in reply have submitted that admittedly, the Complainant was a defaulter and he had failed to pay the installments on time, as and when they became due. As per the directions a history is maintained of each person, who avails a loan. A special act called the “Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005” has been passed and in case of any dispute, it can only be decided under the provisions and the procedure of the said Act. OPs have further stated that the account of the Complainant was sold by them to OP No.3 and now, they have no role in the matter. They have also said that the credit rating agency is a necessary party to the dispute. OPs have submitted that report given earlier can not be withdrawn as the same is part of the history of the account. On merits, the OPs have denied most of the allegations of the Complainant. They have reiterated that the Complainant was a defaulter and his loan was sold by them to OP No.3. They have, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 4. OP No.3 in their preliminary objections have reiterated all the submissions made by OPs No.1 & 2 in their reply. In the para-wise reply, OP No.3 has submitted that the Complainant was a defaulter and he had surrendered the vehicle to them. The amounts, negotiated have not been paid, hence, a no due certificate was not issued to him. The Complainant is only misleading the court by making such averments. OP No.3 has further submitted that Harjit Singh, who is a signatory of the no due certificate placed on record by the Complainant is neither an officer of the Bank, nor an authorized signatory to issue any no due undertaking on their behalf. Further, they have submitted that CIBIL list is a persons credit history. As per OP No.3 some amount is still due from the Complainant. OP No.3 has, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 5. Parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 6. As the Complainant failed to appear on the last date of hearing i.e. 21.11.2011, the arguments of the counsel for the OP No.1 & 2 were heard. Hence, we have proceeded to dispose of the present complaint on merits under Rule 4(8) of the Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987, read with Section 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date), vide order dated 21.11.2011. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the OPs and have perused the record. 8. OPs have taken a preliminary objection that all disputes between the parties have to be settled under the “Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005”. Further OPs, have alleged that the Complainant has not made CIBIL a party and neither has he given any specific information or attached any documents to show where and how he has been made a defaulter. There is no CIBIL notice placed on record by the Complainant. Also, there is no defaulter list allegedly maintained by the OPs or CIBIL, on the record to substantiate the version of the Complainant. OPs have further said that they have right to maintain a defaulters list, which is their internal document and which will be necessary for the future. OPs has also contended that as per Annexure-I, Harjit Singh is an employee of Bullet Point and not of either of the OPs. Hence, any letter issued by him on their behalf is of no consequence in the present dispute. 9. In view of the submissions made by the parties and perusal of the documents placed on record by the Complainant, we also feel that there is no documentary evidence to show or prove any of the averments made by the Complainant against the OPs. It is the Complainant himself, who was a defaulter and though OP No.3 has taken over the loan from OPs No. 1 & 2, they have alleged that their account has not yet been settled by the Complainant. A no due certificate has also not been issued to him. 10. All allegations made by the Complainant are too vague and not substantiated by any cogent evidence. There is no defaulters list of any agency on record to prove the allegations of the Complainant. There is also no document by any of the parties to show either the settlement of the account or the unpaid due. 11. All the contentions of the OPs have also gone un-rebutted by the Complainant. In such a situation, we can only agree with their version. We accordingly, dismiss the present complaint. No order as to costs. 12. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 29th November 2011. Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) PRESIDING MEMBER Sd/- (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)
| | MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, PRESIDING MEMBER | , | | 
