District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No.344/2021.
Date of Institution: 15.07.2021.
Date of Order: 25.08.2022.
Pritam Singh aged about 35 years s/o Shri Guni ram r/o H.No.1973, Nangla Enclave, Part-2, near Holi Faith School, NIT, Faridabad.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
IndusInd Bank Ltd., Consumer finance, Shop No. 325, 326,4V Tower, Nehru ground, NIT, Faridabad – 121001 through its Branch Manager.
…Opposite party……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Rahat Ali, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Rajiv Rana, counsel for opposite party.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant was
owner of Scorpio bearing registration NO. HR-51-AV-3691. The said vehicle was financed from the opposite party vide loan a/c. No. DDF02430C dated5.4.2013 for a sum of Rs.5,90,000/- which was repayable by the complainant in 47 monthly installments which was matured on 6.3.2017. The complainant had cleared all the installments of Rs.11,58,372.52 regularly as per their schedule and requested the opposite party to issue NOC of the said vehicle. The complainant visiting regularly at the branch office of opposite party continuously for getting the No Dues Certificate of the said loan, but the opposite party all the times avoidedthe matter on one pretext or the other and now the opposite party had clearly refused to issue No Dues Certificate to the complainant. The complainant sent legal notice dated 01.03.2021 to the opposite party but all in vain. The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to:
a) Issue No dues Certificate in respect of Loan A/c. No. DDF02430C of Scorpio bearing registration No. HR-51AV-3691 to the complainant.
b) pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs. 21,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite party put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the complainant had neither any cause of action nor locus standi to file the present complaint. It was further submitted that the complainant had availed finance facilities/finance amount for vehicles/equipment’s make M & M Scorpio bearing its registration NO. HR-51AV3691 to the tune of Rs.5,90,000/- from the answering opposite vide loan account No. DDF-02430C for which a loan agreement dated 5.4.2013 was duly signed and executed between the parties to the present complaint. As per the terms and conditions of the said loan agreement, the complainant was to repay the above said loan amount to the answering opposite party, in 48 equal installments of Rs.16,123/- for the above said vehicle, which was to be paid from 05.04.2013 to 07.02.2017. The above said loan account of the complainant was closed and NOC pertains to the said loan account had been hold due to huge default in another loan account as per terms of the loan agreement, wherein the applicant had availed funds facility being a co-borrower. The complainant had concealed the true and material facts from this Hon’ble court intentionally and deliberately with a view to avoid his legal liability, that in fact the complainant had also availed funds facility to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- as Auto loan being co-borrower from the answering opposite party vide loan account NO. DDF0078L and for which a loan agreement dated 31.01.2012 was duly signed and executed between the parties to the present complaint. After availing the funds facility the complainant always remained irregular in making the repayment of the loan amount to the answering opposite parties and defaulted in installments form the very beginning. The officers of the opposite party also visited personally to the complainant and requested him to make the payment of the outstanding amount to the opposite parties, but the complainant always made excuses on one pretext or the other. The complainant had malafide intention from the very beginning and did not make the payments of monthly installments timely and delayed the payments of the answering opposite party intentionally and as on 12.01.2021 there was a huge amount of Rs.3,92,019/- was due and payable by the complainant on account of installments and other overdue charges as per statement of account maintained by the answering opposite party and arbitration award had also been passed in the said loan account in favour of the answering opposite party and against the complainant. The execution of arbitration award was also pending against the complainant before the court of ADJ, Faridabad. Instead of making the payments of pending dues to the answering opposite party the complainant filed the present false and frivolous complaint just to avoid legal liability on his part on one pretext of the other. It was further submitted that as per the terms and conditions envisage din clause 20.0 of the loan agreement, the complainant was bound to clear all the outstanding dues, if he had availed more than one loan facility for issuance of NOC. Opposite party denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
5. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite party– IndusInd Bank Ltd. with the prayer to:a) Issue No dues Certificate in respect of Loan A/c. No. DDF02430C of Scorpio bearing registration No. HR-51AV-3691 to the complainant. b)pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .c) pay Rs. 21,000 /-as litigation expenses.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW/1-A – affidavit of Pritam Singh,, Ex.C-1 – Certificate of registration of motor form O.23 rule 48 vehicle,, Ex.C-2 - statement of account – 28.01.2021, Ex.C-3 – legal notice, Ex.C-4 – postal receipt., Ex.C-5 – track report
On the other hand counsel for the opposite party strongly agitated and
opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of Shri Arun Kumar Upadhyay, authorized representative of M/s. Indusind Bank Ltd., 43, Bagheria House, New Friends colony, New Delhi,, Ex.R-1 – statement of account, Ex.R-2 - statement of 12.10.2021 regarding settlement amount of Rs.3,92,019.36, Ex.R-3 – disputes between IndusInd Bank Limited and Mukesh Amar Singh and another related to loan agreement No. DDF00078L dated31.01.2012.
6. It is evident from registration certificate vide Ex.C-1 that he is the owner of scorpio bearing registration NO. HR-51-AV-3691. As per statement of account vide Ex.C-2 the said vehicle was financed form the opposite party vide loan A/c. No. DDF02430C dated 05.04.2013 for a sum of Rs.5,90,000/- which was repayable by complainant in 47 monthly installment s which was mature don 6.3.2017. The complainant had paid an amount of Rs.5,68,372/- as interest on principal amount of Rs.5,9,000/- in four years. The complainant hadcleared all the loan amount with interest to the opposite party bank. After completion of loan the complainant requestedthe opposite party bank to issue NOC but the opposite party refused to issue NOC in favour of the complainant.
In para No. 9 of the preliminary objections, the opposite party admitted that Mukesh had taken a loan of Rs.4,00,000/- vide loan a/c N. DDF00078L and they further falsely stated that the complainant has signed on loan agreement dated 31.01.2012, while the complainant has never signed any loan agreement on dated 31.01.2012 and the opposite party has not attached any agreement dated 31.01.2012 in their written statement. The opposite parts shown an amount of Rs.3,92,019/- is become due against some other person namely Mukesh Amar Singh vide Ex.R-2. Annexure R-2 clearly stated that the said loan account No. DDF00078L in the name of some other person namely Mukesh and in which no name of complainant was mentioned as a co-borrower. In para No.4 of reply the opposite party admitted that Mukesh had taken a loan of rs.4,00,000/- vide loan No. DDF00078L and they further falsely stated that the complainant has signed on loan agreement date d 31.01.2012, while the complainant has never signed any loan agreement on dated 31.01.2012 and the opposite party has not attached any agreement dated 31.01.2012 in their written statement. The opposite party shown an amount of Rs.3,92,019/- is become due against some other person namely Mukesh Amar Singh Vide Annexure R-2. As per Annexure R-1 of opposite party it is clear that the complainant had already repaid the entire loan amount with interest of rs.11,58,372/- to the opposite party upto 7.02.2017, but the opposite party did not issue NOC to the complainant. It is evident form annexure R-3 i.e. arbitration award against Mukesh Amar Singh vide loan A/c. No. DDF00078L in which they falsely shown the name of complainant as co-borrower, while the complainant has neither take any loan from the opposite party vide loan a/c No. DDF00078L nor signed any document regarding this loan account.
7. After going through the evidence led by the parties, the Commission is of the opinion that as per Annexure R-1, it is clear that the complainant had already repaid the entire loan amount with interest of Rs.11,58,372/- to the opposite party upto 7.2.2017. Hence, the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party has been proved. Resultantly, the complaint is allowed.
8. Opposite party is directed to:
a) issue No Dues Certificate in respect of loan A/c. No. DDF02430C of Scorpio bearing registration No. HR-51-AV-3691 to the complainant.
b) pay Rs.2200/- as compensation on account of mental tension, agony and harassment
c) pay Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copy of this order be given to the parties concerned free of costs and file be consigned to record room.
Announced on: 25.08.2022 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
