DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BATHINDA

C.C. No. 26 of 03-01-2014

Decided on 16-05-2014

Krishan Chand, aged about 66 years, S/o Sh. Sedhu Ram, R/o H. No. 5, Ward No. 14. Kansal Road, Near Satguru Dharam Kanda, Maur Mndi, District Bathinda.

…...Complainant

Versus

Indusind Bank, Guru Kanshi Marg, G.T. Road, Bathinda, through its Branch Manager/Branch Head

Indusind Bank, Mandir Wali Gali, 12 Hattan Chowk, Mansa, through its Branch Manager/Branch Head.

Padam Motors, Bibi Wala Road, Bathinda, through its Prop./Partner/Manager

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President

Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member

Sh. Jarnail Singh, Member

For the Complainant : Sh. Sunder Gupta, counsel for the complainant.

For the opposite party : Sh. K K Vinocha, counsel for opposite party Nos. 1 & 2.

Sh. Sandeep Baghla, counsel for the opposite party

No. 3.

O R D E R

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT

The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he has purchased one Tata Winger Vehicle to earn livelihood for himself and for his family, from opposite party No. 3 vide invoice No. 0000994 dated 23-9-2009 for a sum of Rs. 6,36,000/- inclusive of all taxes, availing loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- from opposite party Nos. 1 & 2. The complainant alleged that at that time, the opposite party No. 3 launched a scheme that if any customer purchases the said vehicle, then the opposite party No. 3 shall get the vehicle insured from Cholamandlam MS General Insurance Company absolutely free for first year. After purchasing the vehicle, when the complainant asked the opposite party No. 3 to get his vehicle insured, they started postponing the matter and ultimately the complainant himself got his vehicle inured from Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd., and made payment to Insurance Company although he was not liable to pay any such amount for insurance. Thereafter the opposite parties charged Rs. 2,30,000/- as interest on the loan amount of Rs. 5.00 Lacs. The complainant paid all the 48 equal installments of 15,209/- each in time and nothing remains due against him. The complainant further alleged that the said vehicle was initially issued registration No. PB-03U-4622 but thereafter new registration No. PB-01-9132 was issued to the vehicle in question after obtaining route permit as it is being plied as taxi by the complainant. The complainant after depositing all the due installments with the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2, approached opposite party No. 2 and requested them to issue No Objection Certificate/No Due Certificate with regard to the aforesaid loan, so that hypothecation can be cancelled. The opposite party No. 2 assured that the said certificate shall be sent to the complainant at his residential address but instead of issuing No Objection/No Due certificate, the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 sent legal notice dated 14-12-2013 to the complainant vide which they demanded Rs. 26,827/- as overdue charges whereas nothing remains due against the complainant. The complainant further alleged that he has been approaching the opposite party No. 2 time and again and requesting them to withdraw the aforesaid illegal demand, but to no effect and finally, the opposite party No. 2 flatly refused to issue No Objection/No Due Certificate to the complainant. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties to issue No Objection/No Due Certificate; withdraw the demand of Rs. 26,827.00 and pay him compensation and cost.

The opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 filed their joint written statement and took legal objection that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint and the vehicle in question is being used as taxi i.e. for commercial purpose, so the complainant is not consumer. The opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 have admitted that the complainant purchased vehicle in question after availing loan facility from opposite party No. 2 to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- and the said vehicle stands hypothecated with it. It has been pleaded that while obtaining loan, the complainant agreed to pay loan amount alongwith interest and other expenses which included insurance charges if incurred by opposite party No. 2 and penal charges etc., on delayed payment. The complainant and his co-borrower executed loan agreement after admitting its terms and conditions to be correct and true and agreed to abide by the same in its letter and spirit. The opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 have pleaded that they are not aware if any scheme was launched by opposite party No. 3. The dispute of first year's insurance premium is not a dispute in between complainant and opposite party Nos. 1 & 2. The complainant purchased the said vehicle from the dealer i.e. opposite party No. 3, of his choice, and at a price and terms and conditions settled in between them. The insurance of vehicle was/is must as per terms and conditions of loan agreement and accordingly, complainant got his vehicle insured from Cholamandlam M S General Insurance Company through its loan account and opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 paid the premium of same alongwith several other vehicles and charged the amount of premium in his loan account from year to year. The opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 have admitted that finance charges/interest as agreed between the parties has been charged to the loan account of complainant to the tune of Rs. 2,30,000/- and EMI was/is Rs. 15,209/- payable in 48 installments, but denied that the complainant ever cleared his loan account. The opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 have pleaded that a sum of 27,027.99 is outstanding in loan account of complainant. The opposite party No. 2 got issued a legal notice to complainant for clearing his loan account, but instead of clearing the same, the complainant filed the present complaint with malafide intention as a counter blast to the legal action to be initiated against him. The opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 have further pleaded that N.O.C. cannot be issued until and unless loan account is cleared by the complainant.

The opposite party No. 3 filed its separate written statement and pleaded that the complainant has purchased the aforesaid vehicle, which is a commercial vehicle, for commercial gains. There is no such alleged scheme of the opposite party No. 2 and it is hypothetical allegation of the complainant. The complainant has failed to produce any such alleged scheme. The scope of relationship of the complainant and opposite party No. 3 is confined to the vehicle and the provisions of insurance is by the insurance company. The opposite party No. 3 denied all other allegations of the complainant.

Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.

In the case in hand, the complainant purchased one Tata Winger vehicle from opposite party No. 3 on 23-09-2009 vide bill Ex. C-2 amounting to Rs. 6,36,000/- after availing loan of Rs. 5.00 Lacs from opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 which was repayable in 48 equal installments of Rs. 15,209/- i.e. Rs. 5.00 Lacs as principal amount and Rs. 2,30,000/- as interest on the said amount.

The allegation of the complainant is that he paid all the installments and requested opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 to issue NOC but they sent legal notice dated 14-12-2013 and demanded Rs. 26,827.99 more from the complainant for issuance of NOC. The submission of the complainant is that as per scheme of opposite party No. 3, at the time of purchase of vehicle in question, the complainant was entitled for free insurance, but the opposite party No. 3 did not provide free insurance and he got the said vehicle insured of his own.

On the other hand, the submission of the learned counsel for opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 is that dispute of first year insurance premium is in between complainant and opposite party No. 3. The opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 have made the payment of insurance premium to the insurer at the asking of complainant having been admitted in para No. 3 of the complaint itself in loan account of complainant and same facts stands duly proved from statements Ex. OP-1/5 and they are entitled to receive the same from complainant which has been duly debited (although late) in loan account of complainant. The submission of opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 is that when they served notice upon complainant for payment of the defaulted amount only then the complainant has filed the present complaint.

The submission of opposite party No. 3 is that there is/was no scheme of free insurance at the time of sale of the vehicle in question and no commitment in regard was made with the complainant by opposite party No. 3.

The opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 are relying upon the loan account statement Ex. OP-1/3 of the complainant regarding the impugned demand. A perusal of Ex. OP-1/3 reveals that the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 besides 48 admitted equal installments and margin money of loan, have shown receipts of various other amounts totaling to Rs. 78,908/-. As per Ex. OP-1/3, the said amount has been received by opposite party Nos. 1 in cash on different dates from the complainant. No detail has been given by the opposite party Nos. 1& 2 on what account this amount has been received from the complainant. Under payable heading, the total amount of four insurance premiums, as shown by the opposite parties in Ex. OP-1/3 as well as in OP-1/5, comes to Rs. 70,348/-, whereas, as discussed above, the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 have shown receipt of Rs. 78,908/- from the complainant besides 48 equal installments and margin money of loan. As per Ex. OP-1/3 only one cheque of loan installment of the complainant was bounced and admitted complainant is not defaulter of loan as he paid all the 48 installments. Thus, raising the demand of Rs. 27,027/- from the complainant by opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 without any basis, amounts to deficiency in service on their part.

The complainant has alleged that at the time of purchase of the vehicle in question, there was scheme of free insurance, but the opposite party No. 3 did not provide him free insurance. A perusal of file reveals that the complainant has not placed any document on file to prove that any such scheme of free insurance was launched/introduced by the opposite party No. 3 at the time of sale of the vehicle in question.

The legal objections taken by the opposite parties that complainant is not consumer as he has purchased the vehicle in question for commercial purposes to gain profit and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint as no cause of action has arisen at Bathinda, are not tenable because the opposite parties have not placed any evidence on file to prove that the vehicle in question is being run by the complainant to earn huge profit. So far as the other objection regarding territorial jurisdiction is concerned, the deposit receipts Ex. C-6 and Ex. C-7 shows that some of the loan installments have been deposited at Bathinda Branch of Indusind Bank i.e. opposite party No. 1.

With utmost regard and humility to the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the opposite parties, they are distinguishable on facts.

In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is accepted with Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and cost against opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 and dismissed qua opposite party No. 3. The opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 are directed to withdraw the demand of Rs. 26,827.99 raised from the complainant and issue No due/No objection certificate to the complainant.

The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.

A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned to record.

Pronounced in open Forum

16-05-2014

(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

(Sukhwinder Kaur)

Member

(Jarnail Singh )

Member