DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 1540/2014
D.No- ___________________ Date: ________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
Smt. ABHA GUPTA
W/o LATE SH. VINOD KUMAR GUPTA,
R/o 3601-A, JAIN STHANAK BLOCK,
TIRTHANKAR NAGAR, JAIN NAGAR,
VILLAGE-KARALA, DELHI.
THROUGH HER SPA HOLDER
SH. RAVI KUMAR S/o SH. KALU RAM,
R/o E-208, JAHANGIR PURI, DELHI-110033. … COMPLAINANT
Versus
INDUSIND BANK,
(THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER),
AT 7-8, VISHAL MARKET,
BHAI PARMANAND COLONY, TAGORE GARDEN,
WEST MUKHERJEE NAGAR, DELHI-110009.… OPPOSITE PARTY
CORAM :SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMAD, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 22.12.2014
Date of Decision: 26.06.2018
SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 thereby alleging that the husband of the complainant namely Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta was the registered owner of the vehicle bearing no.
CC No. 1540/2014 Page 1 of 6
HR-61A-7966, Tata Venture, model 2011 and the husband of the complainant had got the said vehicle financed from OP and the finance amount of the said vehicle was to be paid in installments and the husband of the complainant was making regular payment of installments. The complainant further alleged that all the installments of the vehicle have already stood paid to OP on 14.07.2014 whereby the last payment of Rs.27,100/- was made in respect of the vehicle and after making the payment of Rs.27,100/- to OP, all the amount of finance against the vehicle stood paid and nothing is left to be paid. The complainant further alleged that at the time of making the payment qua the financed vehicle, the concerned official of OP bank had assured the husband of the complainant and his representative namely Sh. Ravi Kumar i.e. the SPA holder of the complainant herein that the necessary “No Objection Certificate” will be dispatched/issued by OP shortly so that the “Hypothecation of Vehicle” may be removed from the Registration Certificate of the vehicle from the concerned Registration Authority and OP failed to issue the NOC in favour of the husband of the complainant despite requests and reminders. On 04.03.2014, unfortunately the husband of the complainantexpired due to illness and after the death of her husband, the complainant is entitled to get the said vehicle transferred in her
CC No. 1540/2014 Page 2 of 6
name as her children have no objection about issuance of NOC by OP in favour of the complainant qua the said vehicle. The complainant further alleged that during his life time, the husband of the complainant due to his illness had given the said vehicle for managing the affairs etc. of the said vehicle to Sh. Ravi Kumar who had been managing all the affairs of the said vehicle for and on behalf of Sh. Vinod Kumar and even after the death of Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta, the complainant and her SPA holder has been requesting OP to issue NOC qua the said vehicle and also informed the death of Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta but till date nothing has been done in the matter and there is an act of deficiency in service on the part of OP.
2. On these allegations the complainant filed the present complaint praying for direction to OP to issue the NOC in the name of the complainant being the widow of registered owner of the vehicle no. HR-61A-7966, model-2011 which is standing in the name of deceased husband of the complainant namely Late Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta as well as compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for harassment and mental agony and deficiency in service alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. till its payment.
3. OP has been contesting the case and filed written statement wherein OP submitted that the complaintis not maintainable and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and the complaint is liable to
CC No. 1540/2014 Page 3 of 6
be dismissed. OP further submitted that as the vehicle in question is a commercial vehicle and deceased husband of the complainant and the complainant are running the vehicle in question which is bearing registration no. HR-61A-7966, Tata Venture for commercial gain and profit and therefore the complainant does not come within the purview of consumer as per the definition of the Consumer Protection Act. OP further submitted that the complainant has never approached OP to issue the NOC in her favour and OP cannot issue NOC in favour of the complainant as the vehicle is registered in the name of deceased husband of the complainant and OP can issue the NOC only in the name of deceased husband of the complainant and the complainant can get the vehicle transferred in her name or any other person after obtaining succession certificate from the competent court in her favour or any other person. OP further submitted that no legal notice was issued and the complainant has not executed her attorney as per law as the special power of attorney is not signed, verified and attested as per law hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. OP further submitted that the husband of the complainant had two loan accounts with OP bank vide agreement bearing no. DDM00299C & DMB00376C and that deceased husband had paid all the EMI in loan account no. DDM00299C but the deceased husband of the complainant had failed to pay the EMI of the loan account no. DMB00376C and as on
CC No. 1540/2014 Page 4 of 6
20.07.2015 outstanding amount is Rs.4,64,427/- and therefore till total outstanding in both the loan accounts is not cleared OP cannot issued NOC in favour of deceased husband of the complainant. OP further submitted that OP had filed execution petition bearing Execution No. 52/2014 in loan account no. DMB00376C which is pending before the Court of Sh. Rakesh Kumar, ADJ, Rohini Courts, Delhi titled as Indusind Bank Ltd. Vs. Vinod Kumar Gupta and is fixed for 31.07.2015.
4. The complainant filed rejoinder to the reply of OP and denied the contentions of OP.
5. In order to prove the case Sh. Ravi Kumar, SPA holder filed his evidence by way of affidavit and the complainant also filed written arguments. The complainant also filed copy of voter ID card of the complainant, copy of death certificate of the husband of the complainant, copy of Certificate of Registration issued by Govt. of Haryana, copy of SPA, copies of payment receipt no. RT#3136613z30X0001 dated 30.09.2013, receipts no. RT#6868914V22P0021 dated 22.05.2014 and receipt no. RT# 6137514P1420003 dated 14.07.2014 issued by OP and copies of bank account passbook statement.
6. On the other hand, on behalf of OP Sh. Neeraj Kumar, authorized representative of OP filed his affidavit which is on identical lines as
CC No. 1540/2014 Page 5 of 6
per case of OP in written statement. OP has also filed written arguments.
7. This Forum has considered the case of the complainant in the light of evidence of the complainant and documents placed onrecord by the complainant. It is not disputed by the complainant that the deceased husband of the complainant was having 2 loan accounts with OP bank. Accordingly, the complainant is required to show that both the loan accounts have been cleared and nothing is due towards those loan accounts. On the other hand, the complainant has also not controverted the case of the OP that an execution application filed by OP bank is pending before a competent Court at Rohini Courts, Delhi for execution of the decreein favour of OP bank. Accordingly, this Forum is of opinion that the complainant has failed to prove her case by any cogent evidence and there is no merits in the complaintand the case is dismissed.
8. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of The Consumer Protection Regulations-2005. Therefore, file be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 26thday of June, 2018.
BARIQ AHMED USHA KHANNA M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
CC No. 1540/2014 Page 6 of 6
