DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.366 of 2015
Date of institution: 23.07.2015 Date of decision : 19.01.2017
Rupinderjit Kaur wife of Harpal Singh resident of Ward No.1, Kurali, Tehsil Kharar, District Mohali through her SPA Harpal Singh son of Hardev Singh resident of village Kurali, Ward No.1, District Mohali.
……..Complainant
Versus
1. The Branch Manager, Commercial Vehicle Department, Vehicle Finance Division, Indusind Bank, SCF No.23-24, First Floor, Phase 3B2, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab.
2. Mr. Murti, Concerned Senior Officer, Indusind Bank, Branch Phase 3B2, Mohali, Punjab.
3. Shri Amarbir Singh, Senior Officer, Indusind Bank, Branch Phase 3B2, Mohali, Punjab.
………. Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum
Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President
Mrs. R.K. Aulakh, Member.
Present: Shri G.S. Khattra, counsel for the complainant.
Shri Vishal Kaushal, counsel for the OPs.
ORDER
By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President
Complainant Rupinderjit Kaur has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act through her SPA Harpal Singh. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
The complainant had purchased Truck Ashok Leyland 2516 after availing loan from the OPs. The duration of the loan was for three years which the complainant had cleared. After that the complainant obtained fresh loan of Rs.5,25,000/- from the OPs vide contract dated 28.04.2011. The loan was to be payable at the monthly installment of Rs.18,650/- from 28.04.2011 to 21.03.2014. Till 12.04.2014 the complainant had returned an amount of Rs.6,42,375/- to the OPs against the loan. The Ops also deducted Rs.1051/- from the account of the complainant on 30.06.2014. The complainant came to know that the OPs are demanding Rs.42,228/- more from him instead of Rs.8,000/- which was actually due towards the complainant. The complainant alongwith her SPA requested the OPs to issue her NOC regarding the loan after taking balance amount of Rs.8,000/- from her. The complainant also discussed with OP No.3 who asked to deposit Rs.20,000/- and then they will issue the NOC to the complainant. The complainant deposited Rs.20,000/- with the OPs on 19.07.2014 but the NOC was not issued to her. Inspite of repeated visits of the complainant and her husband to the OPs, NOC had not been issued to her. The complainant also sent a legal notice dated 25.05.2015 to the OPs but till date the NOC had not been issued by the OPs. Hence the complaint for giving direction to the OPs to issue NOC of the loan; to pay her Rs.1,00,000/- for harassment, mental tension etc. and Rs.33,000/- as costs of litigation.
2. The OPs have pleaded in the preliminary objections of the written statement that the complaint is not maintainable before this Forum and that the complainant has concealed material facts from this Forum. On merits, the OPs have pleaded that as per their record still an amount of Rs.29,492/- is due towards the complainant. The OPs have denied that any settlement was done with the complainant. The OPs have also denied receipt of legal notice from the complainant. Thus denying any unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on their part, the OPs have sought dismissal of the complaint.
3. Evidence of the complainant consists of affidavit of Harpal Singh her SPA Ex.CW-1/1; affidavit of Gurmej Singh Ex.CW-1/2 copies of special power of attorney Ex.C-1; payment schedule Ex.C-2; receipt dated 19.07.2014 Ex.C-3; legal notice dated 25.05.2015 Ex.C-4; two postal receipts Ex.C-5; bank statements Ex.C-6 to C-8; notification dated 07.05.2014 Ex.C-9; cheque dted28.04.2011 alongwith receipt Ex.C-11 and newspaper cuttings Mark-A and Mark-B. In rebuttal, the OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Vishal Hans, their Legal Manager Ex.OP-1/1; computer generated statement of loan account Ex.OP-1; statement of loan account Ex.OP-2 and special power of attorney Ex.OP-3.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant had purchased the vehicle for earning her livelihood and as such she is a consumer of the OPs. Learned counsel further argued that despite payment of Rs.6,42,375/- against the loan amount of Rs.6,51,472/- and the fact that the complainant has paid Rs.20,000/- in pursuance of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the OPs had not issued her the NOC. Learned counsel has also argued that though during pendency of the complaint the OPs have issued the NOC on 16.08.2016 but the complainant should be awarded compensation for mental agony and harassment.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs has argued that the complainant is using the truck for commercial purposes through driver, hence she is not a consumer as per provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant had not made the full payment towards the loan. An amount of Rs.29,492/- is still due towards her. Learned counsel has submitted that there was no settlement arrived between the parties. Learned counsel for the OPs has contended that no NOC has been issued by the OPs to the complainant.
6. We have gone through the pleadings, evidence and written arguments of the parties and heard the oral submissions, addressed by the learned counsel for the parties. We are of the view that the complainant is consumer of the OPs as she has specifically pleaded in Para No.12 of the complaint that she had purchased the vehicle for earning her livelihood and the complaint is duly supported by her affidavit.
7. With regard to issuance of NOC to the complainant for the loan availed by her, the OPs in Para No.3 of their written arguments have submitted as under:
“That it is submitted that earlier the complainant has purchased a Truck Ashok Leyland 2516 bearing registration No.PB-12-J-1407 by availing loan facility from the answering OPs for a period of three years. Now it is the second loan agreement for another commercial vehicle i.e. Taurus bearing Regd. No.PB12J1407.”
8. Thus in view of contention of learned counsel for the complainant and above quoted version of the OPs, it is ample clear that the complainant had received the NOC from the OPs. Now the only point survives for determination as to whether the complainant is entitled for compensation from the OPs for non issuance of NOC. In our opinion, the complainant is entitled for compensation as the OPs had issued NOC to the complainant on 16.08.2016 during pendency of the complaint, as the complaint was instituted on 23.07.2015. The complainant had been put to un-necessary mental agony and harassment and forced litigation due to non issuance of NOC by the OPs on time.
9. In view of our aforesaid discussion, we direct the OPs to pay to the complainant a compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand only) on account of mental agony and harassment. We further direct the OPs to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five thousand only) costs of litigation. The complaint stands allowed accordingly.
The OPs are also directed to comply with the order within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum on the awarded amount till its realization
The arguments on the complaint were heard on 12.01.2017 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced
Dated: 19.01.2017
(A.P.S.Rajput)
President
(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)
Member
