Haryana

Karnal

CC/196/2017

Gyandender - Complainant(s)

Versus

India Infoline Finance Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Siddharta Parkash

14 Dec 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL. 

                                                     Complaint No. 196 of 2017

                                                    Date of instt. 08.06.2017

                                                     Date of decision 14.12.2017

 

Gyanender aged about 45 years son of Shri Prabhu, resident of village Dinger Majra, District Karnal.

                                                                                 ……..Complainant.

                                        Versus

 

India Infoline Finance Ltd., SCO no.338, 2^nd floor, Mugal Canal, Karnal, through its MD/CEO/Authorized Signatory.

                                                   

     ..…Opposite Party.

 

 Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

 

Before     Sh. Jagmal Singh…….President.

                Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present: Shri Sidharth Parkash Advocate for the complainant.

               Opposite Party exparte.

              

               

                (JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT)

 

 ORDER:

 

                This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, on the averments that in the year 2016 he had purchased a old (second hand) Truck bearing registration no.HR-69-A-6873 and got financed from OP company. After getting loan he could not deposit 6-7 installments of said loan due to his ill physical condition incurring huge amount on his treatment.  The representatives of the OP in the month of January, 2017 have taken the aforesaid vehicle/truck forcibly without giving any notice/information. He visited the office of OP for getting possession of his truck by depositing overdue amount of loan including interest and charges, but OP has not given any satisfactory reply to him and officials of the OP are delaying the matter on one pretext or the other. Since January 2017 he approached the OP several times for getting back his truck by depositing the overdue loan amount including interest and charges, but all in vain. Lastly, OP refused to return back the truck. Then, complainant sent a legal notice dated 11.4.2017 through his counsel in that regard but all in vain. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who did not appear and proceeded against exparte by the order of this Forum dated 10.8.2017.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CA and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and closed the evidence on 24.9.2017.

4.             We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the case file carefully.

5.             The allegations of the complainant is that in the year 2016 he purchased a second hand truck bearing registration no.HR-69-A-6873 and also got financed from OP. He has not deposited 6-7 installments of the loan due to his illness. In the month of January 2017, the OP has taken the possession of the said truck from complainant forcibly. Thereafter, he visited the office of OP several times and requested that he is ready to deposit the balance amount with interest, but OP did not pay any heed to his request. In support his version complainant placed on file his affidavit Ex.CA, copy of R.C. Ex.C1, copy of legal notice Ex.C2 and copy of AD Ex.C3 only. The complainant has not placed on record the copy of the agreement, vide which the loan in question had been taken from the OP. The complainant has also not placed any document that how much loan had been taken by the complainant. The complainant had also not placed any receipt regarding the payment of the loan installment. In these circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the complainant has failed to prove the allegations levelled in the complaint by producing cogent evidence. Hence no deficiency on the part of the OP is proved.

6.             Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:14.12.2017

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                          District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

                   (Anil Sharma)             

                        Member