Haryana

StateCommission

A/36/2014

Jain Automaobiles - Complainant(s)

Versus

Jaswnt Singh - Opp.Party(s)

A S Yadav

24 Jan 2017

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First appeal No.36  of 2014

Date of the Institution: 14.01.2014

Date of Decision: 24.01.2017

 

1.      Jain Auto and finance Company, Opposite Parteek School, Chandpole, Jhotwara Road, Jaipur through its Managing Director.

2.      Jain Auto and Finance Company, Singhana road, Opposite Subhash Park, Narnaul through its authorized agent.

                                                                             .….Appellants

Versus

Jaswant Singh S/o Sh.Sultan Singh, r/o Village Sareli,Tehsil Narnaul, Distt. Mahendergarh.

                                                                             .….Respondent

 

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    None for the parties.

 

 

O R D E R

R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

 

It was alleged by the complainant that vehicle bearing registration No.HR-66-4893 was got financed from opposite parties (O.Ps.) on 05.05.2010 for Rs.1,38,000/-. At that time O.P.No.2 obtained his signatures on five blank  cheques and some documents. When loan was sanctioned it was agreed that one advance instalment of Rs.7850/-, twenty two instalments of Rs.7850/- each and last instalment of Rs.800/- were to be paid. He deposited Rs.1,72,000/- with the O.Ps.  On 20.03.2012 he visited the office of O.P. NO.2 to deposit the balance amount of Rs.9350/- and obtaining No Objection Certificate (NOC), but, they illegally demanded Rs.73,000/- from him. 

2.      O.Ps. filed reply controverting his averments and alleged that  agreement was executed on 21.04.2010 and  in case of any dispute between them, the same was to be decided by the arbitrator. He deposited only 20 instalments and not remaining amount, so NOC was not issued to him.  There was no deficiency in service on their part.

 4.     After hearing both the parties learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Narnaul (In short “District Forum”) dispose of the complaint vide impugned order dated 24.10.2013 and directed complainant to deposit Rs.18700/- with O.ps. within 30 days and thereafter O.Ps. to issue NOC and release five blank cheques etc. to the complainant.

5.      Feeling aggrieved therefreom O.Ps. have preferred this appeal.

6.      The appeal was adjourned time and again, but, none has appeared on behalf of the parties. It is already 3.00 P.M.  Since twelve consecutive hearings, none has appeared on behalf of the parties, so the appeal is being decided on merits even in their absence because it is pertaining to the year 2014 and two years have already passed after filing of appeal.

7.      As per agreement if there would be any default in payment then relief of rebate would be withheld by O.Ps. Due to this reason the complainant has been asked to deposit Rs.51,000/-, whereas he is ready to deposit Rs.9350/- only. Learned District forum has rightly come to conclusion that ends of justice will be met if complainant is directed to deposit Rs.18700/- only and thereafter NOC is issued. Impugned order is well reasoned based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed.  Resultantly appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

 

January 24th, 2017

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.