Complaint No: 463 of 2018.
Date of Institution: 15.11.2018.
Date of order: 21.08.2023.
Sarabjit Singh Son of Bakshish Singh, Resident of Village Marri Panwan, Tehsil Batala District Gurdaspur.
.....Complainant.
VERSUS
- India Infoline Finance Ltd, Branch Office at 2nd Floor, Sai Mall, Model Town Road, Near KFC, Model Town Jalandhar through its Branch Manager.
- India Infoline Finance Ltd, AMRITSAR- GT ROAD Deals in: Gold Loan, Commercial Vehicle Loan First Floor, Opposite Ganga Building, G.T Road, Putli Ghar, Amritsar,Punjah-143001 Punjab Contact:1832210007 through its Branch Manager / Authorized Signatory.
- India Infoline Finance Ltd, MUMBAI-MIRA ROAD SHANTIENCLAVE Deals in: Gold Loan, Commercial Vehicle Loan, Shop No-1,2,3,Ground Floor Shanti Enclave opposite Mira Road Railway Station, Shanti Nagar, Mira Road (East) - 401107. Maharashtra Contact: 2228111158 through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.
.....Opposite parties.
Complaint Under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Uttam Raj Sharma, Advocate.
For the Opposite Parties: Sh.Parminder Rana, Advocate.
Quorum: Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra President, Sh.Bhagwan Singh
Matharu, Member.
ORDER
Lalit Mohan Dogra, President.
1. Sarabjit Singh, Complainant (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against the India Infoline Finance Ltd. and others (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties).
2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he purchased Truck 12 Tyres in the month of July, 2017 Bearing Registration No. PB-08- CP-0368 for earning his livelihood and self-employment for the amount of Rs.18,40,000/- and he has no other source of livelihood except the income received by him from plying the Truck and he himself ply the above said Truck. It is alleged that he financed the above said Truck from OP No.1 for the amount of Rs.11,80,000/- through the employees or the OP No.1 namely Satbir Singh and Rohit at Gurdaspur. The above said Rohit sit in Jalandhar Branch, whereas Satbir Singh is doing Field work at Gurdaspur and at the time of finance the above said Truck, the OP’s allured him that 2% P.A interest will be charged on principal amount. It is further alleged that the installment of the financed vehicle is Rs.34,700/- Per Month and he regularly paying installments to the OP’s and till date the complainant had paid 13 installments of Rs.34,700/- each to the OP No.1. Some of the installments deducted directly from the Bank account of him maintained with Axis Bank, Branch Sri Hargobindpur and some of the installments were collected by above said Satbir Singh after visiting the house of complainant. It is further alleged that complainant requested the OP’s to settle the account with the complainant and charge interest at the rate of 2% P.A on principle amount, but the OP’s putting the matter with one pretext or the other. It is further alleged that now the OP’s are threatening to charge interest at the rate of 10.50% P.A from him which is against the law, arbitrary, cryptic, unconstitutional, against the principle of natural justice and the complainant is not liable to pay such like huge interest from him. That now the OP’s are threatening to recover the whole amount from the complainant after charging 10.50% P.A interest on principle amount without settling account under the threat of snatching the Truck of the complainant in their illegal custody. It is further alleged that he requested the OP’s to charge the interest at the rate of 2% P.A on principle amount and receive the installment after settling the account with the complainant, but the OP’s refused to admit the claim of the complainant, rather threatening to snatch the livelihood of complainant after taking the Truck in the illegal possession. Due to this illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties the complainant has suffered great loss and also suffered mental harassment and inconvenience. So, there is a clear cut deficiency on the part of the opposite parties.
On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and prayed that necessary directions may kindly be issued to the opposite parties to settle the account with the complainant after charging interest at the rate of 2% P.A on principle amount and received installments regarding the remaining finance amount and restraining the OP’s from snatching the Truck in question from the complainant illegally and forcibly. The OP’s may be further burdened with compensation of Rs.20,000/- on account of physical harassment and mental agony in the interest of justice.
3. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through their counsel and filed their written reply, by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed being false, frivolous and vexatious and there is no deficiency in services on the part of the opposite parties, that the complainant has not approached this Hon'ble Commission with clean hands. He has suppressed most material, relevant, exact and correct facts from this Hon'ble Commission, which disentitles him from the relief claimed, that the present complaint has been filed with malafide intention and ulterior motive to cause harassment to the opposite parties and the same is merely an abuse of process of law, that the complainant is not a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, that infact the complainant has failed to make the payment of the outstanding dues towards his loan account and now instead of making payment of his dues he has filed the present false and frivolous complaint against the opposite parties only to further harass them. It is pleaded that the complainant financed the above said Truck from respondent no.1 vide loan account no. 1000138041 for the amount of Rs.11,81,875/- to be repaid in 60 monthly EMIs of Rs.34,727/- each and the loan was repaid with the rate of interest as stipulated in the loan agreement and as agreed on the loan amount and the complainant is a constant defaulter and he never adhere to the repayment schedule. The complainant has filed the present complaint only to harass the opposite parties and to put pressure upon them to come to his terms. It is further pleaded that Rs.10,66,967/- is still pending as outstanding in the loan account of the complainant as on 24.01.2019. At the time of execution of loan agreement, it was specifically agreed by the complainant that he will repay the loan amount as per agreed terms and in case he did not repay the loan amount as per the agreement then the opposite parties shall have the right to repossess the vehicle. It is further pleaded that the opposite parties has every right to repossess the vehicle as the complainant has not repaid the loan amount and he has continuously defaulted in the repayment of installments of the loan. The opposite parties have sent various reminders to the complainant to repay the loan amount. The letters dated 06.09.2018, 08.10.2018and 24.10.2018 but still the complainant did not repay the dues and the complainant has no right under any provisions of law.
On merits, the opposite parties have reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. In the end, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sarabjit Singh, Ex.CW-1 alongwith other document as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3.
5. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has tendered into evidence affidavit of Mandeep Singh, Authorized Representative, M/s India Infoline Finance Ltd, Ludhiana as Ex.OP-1 alongwith other documents as Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-5.
6. Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.
7. Written arguments not filed by both the parties.
8. Counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant purchased one truck for earning his livelihood and out of total cost of the truck, complainant availed finance from party No.1 for Rs.11,80,000 at Gurdaspur. At the time of finance of said truck opposite parties promised to charge interest at the rate of 2% per annum, however later on, opposite party started threatening to charge interest at the rate of 10.50% per annum which amounts to deficiency service. In the end counsel for complainant prayed that opposite parties be restrained from taking possession of truck.
9. On other hand counsel for the opposite party argued that after availing the loan facility, the complainant defaulted in payment of loan amount. It is further argued that rate of interest was never promised as 2% per annum. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant as he has not been paying due installment.
10. We have heard the counsels for the opposite parties and gone through the record. It is admitted fact that complainant had availed financial assistance of Rs.11,80,000/- from the opposite party to purchase truck number PB08CP0368. It is further admitted fact that said loan amount was to be paid in 60 equal installments of Rs.34,700/-. Perusal of statement of account Ex.C3 shows that complainant had deposited Rs.4,60,816/- as on 12.11.2018 and meaning thereby that no further amount has been deposited by the complainant, as such complainant cannot expect the opposite parties to sit idle without making recovery of the due amount. The complainant has disputed rate of interest and the complainant has claimed that opposite parties agreed to charge interest at the rate of 2% per annum but later on threaten to charge interest at the rate of 10.50%.
11. However perusal file shows that none of the party has placed on record loan agreement which is basic document from which it can be entertained that as to what was the rate of interest, as such in absence of copy of the loan agreement we are unable to decide as to what is the rate of interest to be charged by opposite parties on the loan amount. As such present complaint is disposed off with directions to opposite parties to overhaul the loan account of the complainant after taking into consideration deposit of Rs.4,60,816/-by the complainant and reaffix remaining payable loan amount after calculating the rate of interest on the loan amount as per loan agreement, and in case of default in deposit of installments possession of vehicle be taken with due course of law.
12. The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.
13. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.
(Lalit Mohan Dogra)
President
Announced: (B.S.Matharu)
Aug. 21, 2023 Member
*YP*
