Punjab

Amritsar

CC/17/219

Puran Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Indusind Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Deepinder Singh

28 Jun 2017

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
SCO 100, District Shopping Complex, Ranjit Avenue
Amritsar
Punjab
 
Complaint Case No. CC/17/219
 
1. Puran Singh
VPO Bachiwind, Ajnala, Amritsar
Amritsar
Punjab
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Indusind Bank
Mall Road, Amritsar
Amritsar
Punjab
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
  Anoop Lal Sharma PRESIDING MEMBER
  Rachna Arora MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 28 Jun 2017
Final Order / Judgement

Order dictated by:

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member

1.       Sh.Puran Singh  has brought the instant complaint under the Consumer Protection Act,  on the allegations that he has availed loan for his truck vehicle from Opposite Party and hired the services of the Opposite Party for valuable consideration and the complainant is running the said vehicle without employing any permanent employee for exclusively earning his livelihood by means of self employment, and hence the complainant is a consumer as provided under the Act and is competent to    invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum.  The complainant has taken the loan of Rs.6,50,000/- from the Opposite Party and interest charges to be paid on the said amount is Rs.2,32,180/- and in total the amount of Rs.8,82,180/- is payable in 48 monthly installments. The Opposite Party kept on charging the exorbitant amount over and above the contractual amount charged Rs.10,10,548.54 paisa from the complainant whereas the amount payable was Rs.8,82,180/- i.e. the Opposite Party charged Rs.1,28,368/- excess that the actual amount payable, inspite of the said fact of clearing the loan account of the Opposite Party is not issuing the NOC regarding the hypothecation on the said vehicle to the complainant after making several futile visits to the Opposite Party.  The aforesaid acts of the Opposite Party in not issuing the NOC regarding the hypothecation on the said vehicle to the complainant and charging the excess amount than the contractual amount without any reason is an act of deficiency in services, malpractices, unfair trade practice and has caused lot of mental agony, harassment, inconvenience besides financial loss to the complainant for which Opposite Party is liable to pay the compensation.   Vide this complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs:-

a)       Opposite Party be directed to issue the NOC regarding the hypothecation on the said vehicle to the complainant.

b)      Opposite Party be directed to refund Rs.1,28,368/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of payment till realization.

c)       Opposite Party be directed to pay the compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant.

d)      Opposite Party be directed to pay the adequate cost of the litigation.

e)       Any other consequential relief to which the complainant is entitled to under the law, equity, justice and fairplay be also awarded.

Hence the present complaint.    

2.       Upon notice, initially Sh.Ravi B.Mahahan, Advocate appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party, but thereafter none appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party nor filed the written version on behalf of the Opposite Party despite availing sufficient opportunities, hence  Opposite Party was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 5.6.2017 of this Forum.   

3.       Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith copy of statement Ex.C2  and closed the exparte evidence on behalf of the complainant.

4.       We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the complainant; arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the complainant and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by the complainant with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for the complainant.

5.       From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and averments of the complaint and evidence produced on record by the complainant, it stands fully proved on record that  the complainant availed loan for his truck vehicle from Opposite Party and hired the services of the Opposite Party for valuable consideration and the complainant is running the said vehicle without employing any permanent employee for exclusively earning his livelihood by means of self employment, the complainant is a consumer as provided under the Act and is competent to   invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum.  The complainant has taken the loan of Rs.6,50,000/- from the Opposite Party and interest charges to be paid on the said amount is Rs.2,32,180/- and in total the amount of Rs.8,82,180/- is payable in 48 monthly installments. The Opposite Party kept on charging the exorbitant amount over and above the contractual amount charged Rs.10,10,548.54 paisa from the complainant where as the amount payable was Rs.8,82,180/- i.e. the Opposite Party charged Rs.1,28,368/- excess than the actual amount payable, inspite of the said fact of clearing the loan account, the Opposite Party is not issuing the NOC regarding the hypothecation on the said vehicle to the complainant after making several futile visits to the Opposite Party.  The aforesaid acts of the Opposite Party in not issuing the NOC regarding the hypothecation on the said vehicle to the complainant and charging the excess amount than the contractual amount without any reason is an act of deficiency in services, malpractices, unfair trade practice and has caused lot of mental agony, harassment, inconvenience besides financial loss to the complainant for which Opposite Party is liable to pay the compensation.  The complainant proved all these averments through his affidavit Ex.C1  and also proved on record copy of statement Ex.C2.  On the other hand, the  evidence produced on record  by the complainant remained unrebutted and unchallenged  as none appeared on behalf of  Opposite Party to defend its case despite sufficient opportunities provided to them nor  dared to file an affidavit to rebut the case of the complainant.

6.       So, from the entire unrebutted evidence produced by the complainant on record, it stands fully proved on record that there is certainly deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party and in these circumstances,  we direct the Opposite Party to issue the NOC regarding the hypothecation on the said vehicle to the complainant. Opposite Party is also directed to refund Rs.1,28,368/-  charged  in excess from the complainant.  The compliance of this  order be made by the Opposite Party within  30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to get the order enforced through the indulgence of this Forum. Opposite Party is also burdened with costs of Rs.2000/-. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of cost. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Open Forum.

 
 
[ Anoop Lal Sharma]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
[ Rachna Arora]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.