PER:

Charanjit Singh, President;

1        The present complaint has been received from the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Amritsar by the order of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab, Chandigarh for its disposal.

2        The complainant has filed the present complaint by invoking the provisions of Consumer Protection Act under Section 12 and 13 against the opposite parties on the allegations that the complainant had obtained a loan approximately Rs. 17 Lacs from the opposite party No. 1 for the purpose of one vehicle named as Toyota Fortuner in the year 2015 which was sanctioned by the opposite party No. 1 to the complainant against interest @10.25% per annum. The said vehicle was purchased from the opposite party No. 2. The payment of said vehicle was made by the opposite party No. 1 to the opposite party No. 2 after taking the down payment from the complainant and it was assured by the opposite party No. 1 that they have made the entire payment of said vehicle to opposite party No. 2 and the complainant may take delivery of vehicle from opposite party No. 2. The complainant was informed that he is to pay EMI of Rs. 54,280/- to the opposite party No. 1. The delivery of the said vehicle was given to the complainant by opposite party No. 2 in the month of April, 2015 and since then the said vehicle is in possession of complainant but till date opposite party has not provided necessary papers of the said vehicle like form 21 and 22, original Bill of vehicle etc. to complainant, which are necessary for the registration of the vehicle with registering authority. The complainant had been approaching the opposite party No. 2 to collect the necessary documents and in the month of July 2016 the opposite party No. 2 told the complainant that the entire payment of said vehicle has not been made by the opposite party No. 1. It was utter surprise for the complainant that the opposite party No. 1 had been charging interest over the entire loan amount and receiving the EMI from the complainant for the entire loan amount when the opposite party No. 1 had not made the entire payment to the company and on the other hand the opposite party No. 1 had been receiving interest over the loan amount approximately 17 Lacs w.e.f. April 2015 till July 2016. The complainant many a times approached the opposite party No. 1 personally/ telephonically and through emails and requested for the statement of account of his loan account and also to deduct the excess amount of interest, which they have received for the aforesaid period but till date neither the statement of account has been provided to the complainant nor the amount of excess interest received by them has been deducted n the loan account of complainant by the opposite party No.1. The aforesaid act and conduct of opposite party No. 1 clearly proves that there is gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No. 1 on account of which complainant is facing a lot of mental tension, pain, agony and harassment.  The complainant has prayed that the following reliefs:-

(a)     The opposite party No. 1 may kindly be directed to provide up to date true statement of account of loan account to the complainant.

(b)     The opposite party No. 1 may kindly be directed to deduct the excess amount of interest, which they have received w.e.f. April 2015 till July 2016, which is approximately Rs. 1.50/2.00 Lacs.

(c)      A compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- may kindly be awarded in favour of complainant against the opposite party No. 1

(d)     The litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 22,000/- may also be awarded to the complainant.

(e)      Any other relief to which the complainant is found entitled under the law and equity may also be awarded to him.

3        After formal admission of the complaint, notice was issued to Opposite Parties and opposite party No. 1 appeared through counsel and filed written version and contested the complaint by interalia pleadings that the present complaint filed by the complainant is based on conjectures and surmises. No detail of the deficient amount, if any, allegedly paid by the bank to the dealer of the vehicle has been mentioned. However, as per records of the bank, a sum  of Rs. 16,75,300/- was released by the bank in favour of dealer ANR Motors Pvt. Ltd. Amritsar, after deducting processing fee of Rs. 350/- and stamp duty of Rs. 550/- out of the total loan of Rs. 16,76,200/- and based upon the said released loan EMIs of Rs. 54,280/- were fixed by the bank. The complainant continued to pay the EMIs as per agreed terms and conditions of loan documents without raising any objection during the whole repayment period and as has now filed the present complaint without mentioning the deficiency amount allegedly paid by the bank and as such, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed being not maintainable subject to heavy costs to be imposed against the complainant. The opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service in terms of Consumer Protection Act and as such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed straightway. As per records of the bank loan of Rs. 16,76,200/- was sanctioned and released by the bank in favour of complainant. The rate of interest applicable is also a matter of record. The entire sanctioned loan was duly released to the said dealer by the bank on behalf of the complainant on receipt of which vehicle was delivered by the said dealer in favour of complainant.  The EMIs and interest were duly calculated and claimed from the complainant based upon the released loan which the complainant had been depositing with the bank without raising any objection for years together. The bank was liable to release the loan amount sanctioned to the complainant in favour of the said dealer after deducting their usual charges and remaining amount towards the consideration of the vehicle was to be paid by the complainant himself and not by the bank. The complainant never approached the bank with any such allegations rather he continued to make payment of the EMIs without raising any such objection regarding non release of the full loan amount knowing well that the bank has released entire loan directly in favour of the dealer on his behalf.  The opposite party No. 1 has not committed any negligence and deficiency in service.  The opposite party No. 1 has denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same.

4        The opposite party No. 2 appeared through counsel and filed written version and contested the complaint by interalia pleadings that the complainant is not consumer qua opposite party so far as the subject matter of the complainant is concerned. The complaint is legally not maintainable in the present form        . The complainant has got no cause of action to file the present complaint against the opposite party No. 2. The complaint has been filed just to harass opposite party No. 2. The complaint has been filed just to harass the opposite party No. 2 and with a view to get unjust enrichment/ reliefs by abusing process of law which must be deprecated. Therefore, the present complaint is nothing but sheer abuse of process of law, as such, is liable to be dismissed. The complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint against the opposite party No. 2 as there is no deficiency in services on the part of Opposite Party No.2. The complainant is estopped by his own acts, conducts and from filing the present complaint against the opposite party No. 2. The complainant has filed present complaint with manipulated or twisted facts which are not permissible under law. The complainant has put forth a story made up out of whole cloth and tried to hoodwink this commission by concealing or suppressing material facts from this commission, as such, the complaint is without modicum of merit and complainant is no entitled to any relief as prayed for as he is attempting to pull wool under eyes of law. There lies rub in entertaining such complaint and as such same deserves dismissal out rightly on this score only. The present complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. The opposite party No. 2 is unnecessary party to the dispute.  Necessary documents have already been supplied to the complainant by the opposite party No. 2.  There is no deficiency in services or unfair trade practice alleged against opposite party No. 2, so the opposite party No. 2 is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant, particularly when the complainant raised dispute against opposite Party No. 1 only. The opposite party No.2  has denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same.

5        To prove his case, Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex. C-1, copy of RC Ex. C-2. Copy of insurance over note Ex. C-3, copy of Adhar Card Ex. C-4, coy of e-mail of loan account Ex. C-4A to C-16 and closed the evidence. On the other hands, Ld. counsel for the opposite party No. 1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Vikash Mahajan, Manager Ex. OP1/1 and closed the evidence. Ld. counsel for the opposite party No. 2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Rakesh Kapoor General Manager Finance Ex. OP2/A and closed the evidence.

6        We have heard the Ld. counsels for the parties and have carefully gone through the record.

7        From the combined and harmonious reading of pleadings and documents placed on record is going to prove that the complainant had obtained a loan approximately Rs. 17 Lacs from the opposite party No. 1 for the purpose of one vehicle named as Toyota Fortuner in the year 2015 which was sanctioned by the opposite party No. 1 to the complainant against interest @10.25% per annum. The said vehicle was purchased from the opposite party No. 2. The payment of said vehicle was made by the opposite party No. 1 to the opposite party No. 2 after taking the down payment from the complainant and it was assured by the opposite party No. 1 that they have made the entire payment of said vehicle to opposite party No. 2 and the complainant may take delivery of vehicle from opposite party No. 2. The complainant was informed that he is to pay EMI of Rs. 54,280/- to the opposite party No. 1. The delivery of the said vehicle was given to the complainant by opposite party No. 2 in the month of April, 2015 and since then the said vehicle was in possession of complainant but till date opposite party has not provided necessary papers of the said vehicle like form 21 and 22, original Bill of vehicle etc. to complainant, which are necessary for the registration of the vehicle with registering authority. The opposite party No. 2 told the complainant that the entire payment of the said vehicle has not been made by the opposite party No. 1. The opposite party No. 1 had been recovering the interest over the loan amount approximately Rs. 17 Lacs. W.e.f. April 2015 till July 2016. On the other hands, the case of the opposite party No. 1 is that as per records of the bank, a sum  of Rs. 16,75,300/- was released by the bank in favour of dealer ANR Motors Pvt. Ltd. Amritsar, after deducting processing fee of Rs. 350/- and stamp duty of Rs. 550/- out of the total loan of Rs. 16,76,200/- and based upon the said released loan EMIs of Rs. 54,280/- were fixed by the bank. The complainant continued to pay the EMIs as per agreed terms and conditions of loan documents without raising any objection during the whole repayment period and as has now filed the present complaint without mentioning the deficiency amount allegedly paid by the bank and as such, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed being not maintainable subject to heavy costs to be imposed against the complainant.  The case of the opposite party No. 2 is that the complaint is legally not maintainable in the present form.         The complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint against the opposite party No. 2 as there is no deficiency in services on the part of Opposite Party No.2. Necessary documents have already been supplied to the complainant by the opposite party No. 2.  There is no deficiency in services or unfair trade practice alleged against opposite party No. 2, so the opposite party No. 2 is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant, particularly when the complainant raised dispute against opposite Party No. 1 only.

8        From the appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, the point involved in the present case is that the vehicle in question is financed with the opposite parties from whom the complainant has got sanctioned a loan and a hire purchase agreement was executed between complainant and opposite parties, as such, the complainant is not a consumer of the opposite party. Reliance in this connection has been placed upon Tata Motors Finance Ltd. And Anr. Vs. Vikas Nanda & Ors. 2011(2) CPC 217 of the Hon’ble Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission wherein it has been held that as the vehicle was purchased under a hire purchase agreement, complainant was not a consumer . Further reliance has been placed upon Parmeswari W/o Ramakrishnana Vs. The General Manager, V.S.T. Service Station, The Branch Manager, Tata Finance Limited and the United India Insurance Company 2010(2) CPC 164 (NC) of the Hon’ble National Commission wherein it has been held that in the case of Hire purchase agreement, the complainant does not become a consumer and therefore, the complaint is not maintainable.

9        In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit and substance in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copy of order will be supplied by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar as per rules. File be sent back to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar.

Announced in Open Commission

20.09.2022