Punjab

Faridkot

CC/19/272

Mnadeep Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Indusind Bank and another - Opp.Party(s)

Parmjit Singh

31 Jul 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FARIDKOT

 

           Complaint No. :            272 of 2019

Date of Institution :        14.11.2019

Date of Decision :           31.07.2024

 

Mandeep Kaur daughter of Gurjant Singh resident of Kotkapura, District Faridkot.                            

                         .....Complainant

Versus

 

1. Indusind Bank, Branch Feroze Gandhi Market, Near Bhai Bala Chowk, Ludhiana, through Branch Manager.
2. Amritpal Singh son of Sheetal Singh resident of Village Khandoor, Thana Jodha, District Ludhiana.

..........OPs

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

(Now, under Section 35 of the C.P. Act

 

Quorum:     Sh Rakesh Kumar Singla, President,

                     Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

Present:       Sh Kiranjit Singh, Ld Counsel for Complainant,

                    Sh Gurpreet Chauhan, Ld Counsel for OPs.

 

* * * * * *

ORDER

(Rakesh Kumar Singla, President)

                                           Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to them to issue NOC in the name of complainant and for further directing them to pay Rs.50,000/-as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by her alongwith litigation expenses.

cc no.272 of 2019

 2                                   Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that Gurwinder Singh husband of complainant purchased a new car bearing registration no.PB 25-F-9779 with the financial assistance from OP-1 Bank. Including all expenses and charges, cost of said car was Rs. 5 lac and husband of complainant paid Rs.70,000/-as downpayment and remaining amount was to be paid in equal monthly instalment of Rs.8500/-for five years. OP-2 helped Gurwinder Singh in obtaining loan and he was the guarantor in his loan case. It is submitted that Gurwinder Singh husband of complainant made payment of first monthly instalment in time and thereafter, he did not pay the instalment in time and he had to pay Rs.1000/-as penalty alongwith instalment amount. When he again did not make payment of third instalment then,  OPs communicated complainant over mobile phone and made her aware about non payment of third instalment by her husband and assured that NOC would be issued in her name if she makes payment of entire loan instalments with them. At that time, there was some matrimonial dispute between complainant and her husband and she started living with her parents at Kotkapura. Complainant deposited Rs.9500/-as third instalment and penalty thereon with OPs from Kotkapura. For delayed payment, OPs confiscated the said vehicle and called complainant at their office. Complainant alongwith her parents visited their office, where OP-2 was also available. OPs offered complainant to make payment of entire payment of Rs.3,50,000/- and if she does so, then delivery of said car would be given to her and its NOC would also be issued in the name of complainant. OP-1 assured complainant that after completing all formalities, car alongwith requisite documents would be handed over to her within 7-8 days. Complainant asked for all this in writing but OP-1 asked complainant to have faith in OPs and there would be no blunder or problem. Complainant agreed to make payment and on 18.09.2019, OP-1 and 2 visited the

cc no.272 of 2019

house of complainant at Kotkapura and they handed over the said car to complainant and in lieu of that complainant issued them cheque for Rs.3,50,000/-. Official of Bank, who handed over the possession of said car to complainant, promised to issue NOC in the name of complainant after completing all formalities, but thereafter, they kept lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other. Few days ago, complainant approached OPs alongwith her parents and requested them to issue NOC for said car in her name, but OPs demanded Rs.38,000/-for this purpose. Though complainant has made entire payment of Rs.3,50,000/-to OPs, but said that some amount is still due towards loan amount. Thereafter, OPs asked her to pay Rs.45,000/-saying Rs.7000/-of interest have been added over this amount. All this amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. Complainant has made several requests to Ops to settle the loan account and to issue NOC in her name, but Ops paid no heed to the genuine requests, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the instant complaint.

3                                                  Ld Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 19.11.2019, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                                          OPs filed written statement through counsel taking preliminary objections that complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint and complaint filed by him is not maintainable. It is averred that there is some matrimonial dispute between complainant and her husband and complainant wants to obtain ownership of car in question. Ld counsel for OPs sternly denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that

cc no.272 of 2019

complainant is not their consumer as loan was granted to Gurwinder Singh husband of complainant and therefore, NOC cannot be issued to complainant and only original borrower is entitled for the same. It is brought before the Commission that amount of Rs.1,30,355/-is still due towards Gurwinder Singh who availed loan from them and in any way, complainant is not their consumer. Complainant has filed the present complaint only to harass the answering Op. On merits, OP-1 has denied all the allegations of the complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that showroom price of said car was not Rs.3,80,000/-, rather it was Rs.4,11,351/-and answering OP financed loan of Rs.3,86,149/-to complainant which he had to return alongwith interest of Rs.1,16,038/- within 60 months. Meaning thereby, Gurwinder Singh husband of complainant was to return Rs.5,02,187/-in total to answering OP. It is also denied that Gurwinder Singh procured loan through OP-2, rather OP-2 is the co-borrower of the loan taken by the husband of the complainant. It is also denied that answering OP made offer for one time settlement of Rs.3,50,000/-and it is also denied that they ever assured complainant for granting NOC to her, but in reality amount of Rs.1,30,355/-is still due towards borrower Gurwinder Singh and they are entitled to recover the same. It is further averred that complainant is not their consumer as loan was availed by her husband who resides at Ludhiana, but due to matrimonial dispute as complainant resides at Kotkapura, therefore, this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops. All the other allegations and the allegation with regard to relief sought too are denied being wrong and incorrect and prayer for dismissal of complaint with costs is made.

5                                                         Proper opportunity was given to complainant and Opposite Parties to lead evidence to prove their respective

cc no.272 of 2019

pleadings, but despite availing sufficient opportunities, complainant did not tender any evidence and therefore, vide order dated 18.07.2022,  evidence of complainant was closed by order of this Commission. However, documents Ex C-1 to 3 annexed with file at the time for filing the present complaint, are taken into consideration.

6                                                 To controvert the allegations of complainant, ld counsel for OPs tendered into evidence account statement Ex OP-1 and then, closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

7                                                  We have heard the ld counsel for complainant as well as OPs and have also carefully gone through the case file, affidavits and documents placed on record.

8                                         From the careful perusal of record file, affidavits and documents placed on record, and from the above discussion, it is observed that case of the complainant is that her husband purchased a car with the financial assistance from OP-1, but her husband could not the pay EMIs fixed for repayment of loan and  on assurance of OPs that if she clears the entire loan amount of her husband by paying Rs.3,50,000/- to OP-1 in one settlement, then NOC for said car would be released in the name of complainant,  she made entire payment of loan account of her husband with whom she is having some matrimonial dispute. Now, grievance of the complainant is that inspite of clearance of entire settled amount of loan, OPs have not issued NOC in her name.

9                                      To prove her pleadings, complainant has relied upon receipts Ex C-2 and Ex C-3 that reveal the fact that complainant has made payment of Rs.9500/- and Rs.3,50,000/-to OP-1. There is no doubt that complainant made

cc no.272 of 2019

payment as aforementioned to OP-1, but she has made payment on behalf of her husband. Keeping apart the fact that there is some matrimonial dispute between complainant and her husband, both are considered as one entity.

10                                                  At the very outside, it is required to be made clear that complainant is not the consumer of OPs. From the documents, there is not even an iota of doubt that complainant has paid the alleged amount to Bank on behalf of her husband, but complainant herself is not the consumer of OPs, because loan was granted to Gurwinder Singh husband of complainant and not to complainant and ownership for said car and No Objection Certificate in this regard can not be issued in the name of complainant. Moreover, amount of Rs.1,30,355/-is still lying outstanding towards complainant and without clearing the same, NOC cannot be issued to Gurwinder Singh. Borrower for said car purchase, was Gurwinder Singh and only Gurwinder Singh husband of complainant is entitled to file the present complaint. Neither complainant has availed any services from OPs, nor there is any agreement of loan in her name and even she has not paid any consideration to OPs. The amount paid by her to OP-1 as shown through receipts Ex C-2 and Ex C-3 has been paid by her to OP-1 Bank not as consumer of Bank, but she paid the said amount to bank on behalf of her husband who is the real consumer of OP-1 Bank. Moreover, it is brought before the Commission that at present complainant has been residing with her parents at Kotkapura but loan was taken from OP-1 at Ludhiana. In this  way also, complainant has no jurisdiction to file the present complaint. This is crystal clear that complainant is neither the consumer of OPs nor she is entitled to file the present complaint before this Commission. Therefore, complaint filed by her before this Commission is not maintainable.

 

cc no.272 of 2019

11                                                      Also in view of above discussion, this Commission is of considered opinion that complainant is not the consumer of OPs and therefore, complaint in hand is hereby dismissed.

12                                        In peculiar circumstances of the case, there are no orders as to costs.

13                                             Complaint could not be decided within stipulated period due to heavy pendency of work and incomplete quorum.

14                                              Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law.  File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Commission :

Dated: 31.07.2024

 

                                                     (Param Pal Kaur)           (Rakesh Kumar Singla)

Member                            President