Haryana

Karnal

CC/227/2017

Krishan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Amit Arora

16 Apr 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No. 227 of 2017

                                                          Date of instt. 18.07.2017

                                                          Date of Decision 16.04.2019

 

Krishan son of Shri Jai Bhagwan, resident of House no.1, S.P. Colony, Phooshgarh, District Karnal.

                                                                         …….Complainant

                                                        Versus

 

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Sector 12, opposite Mini Secretariat, Karnal through its Branch Manager.

 

                                                                        …..Opposite Party.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 

 

Before    Sh. Jaswant Singh……President. 

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

                Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

 

 Present:  Shri Rishi Chalia Advocate for complainant.

                   Shri G.S.Khillan Advocate for opposite party.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that the complainant purchased two tractors (Sonalica) one in the year 2012 bearing R.C. no.HR-05/AF-7240 and another in the year 2013 bearing its RC no.HR-05/AH-5693 from Preet Motors, Karnal. The complainant purchased the aforesaid tractor from the company and after taking the loan from the bank on EMI to the tune of Rs.12,400/- and Rs.17,000/- respectively. The complainant had paid all the loan amount in the shape of EMIs and now nothing is due towards the complainant. Now the complainant alongwith his relative went to the office/bank and demanded the No Objection Certificate (NOC) regarding the aforesaid tractor, so that the he may get delete the hypothecation entry in the record of registration authority. But official of the OP postponed the matter on one pretext or the other. Lastly about a week ago the officials of the OP refused to give the NOC and demanded more amount regarding the aforesaid loan, whenever the complainant has already cleared the loan amount. Then complainant served a legal notice dated 9.5.2017 to the OP in this regard but OP has not issued the NOC. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who appeared and filed written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus standi and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that complainant had purchased the tractor bearing no.HR-05AF-7240 & HR-05AH-5693 after taking loan from the OP, vide loan agreement no.TFE1558478 dated 3.07.2012 and loan agreement no.TEF1904020 dated 20.03.2013 respectively an amount of Rs.4,07,336/- was advanced as loan amount for the tractor bearing no.HR-05AF-7240 for a period of 48 months on a EMI of Rs.12,400/- and an amount of Rs.4,06,181/- was advanced as loan amount for tractor bearing no.HR-05AH-5693 for a period of 30 months on a EMI of Rs.17,000/-. An amount of Rs.87,965.12 is due towards the complainant as and on 31.10.2017. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and closed the evidence on 18.03.2019.

4.             On the other hand, OP tendered into evidence documents Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 and closed the evidence on 14.12.2018.

5.             We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

6.             The case of the complainant is that complainant purchased 2 tractor Sonalika, one in the year 2012 bearing RC no.HR-05/AF-7240 and another in the year 2013 bearing its RC no.HR-05/AH-5693 from Preet Motors, Karnal, after taking the loan from bank, the complainant had paid all the loan amount in the shape of EMIS and nothing is due towards the complainant. The complainant demanded no objection certificate from the OP, so that, he may get deleted the hypothecation in the record of registration authority. But the OP refused to issuing the NOC and demanded more amount regarding the above settle loan, whenever the complainant has already cleared the loan amount of both tractors and nothing is due towards the complainant.

7.             The case of the OP is that an amount of Rs.4,07,336/- was advanced as a loan amount for the tractor bearing RC no.HR05-AF-7240 for a period of 48 months on a EMI of Rs.12,400/- and amount of Rs.4,06,181/- was advanced as a loan amount for the tractor bearing RC no.HR05-AH-5693 for the period of 30 months on a EMI of Rs.17,000/-. An amount of Rs.87,965.12/- is due towards the complainant as and on 31.10.2017. Complainant failed to deposit the abovesaid amount and without clearing the loan amount, NOC could not be issued.

8.             Admittedly, complainant purchase two tractors make Sonalika, one in year 2012 bearing RC no.HR05-AF-7240 and another in the year 2013 bearing RC no.HR05-AH-5693 from Preet Motor, Karnal, after taking the loan from OP. As per the complainant, he cleared both the loan amounts of the tractors in question, but no document is placed on record to prove that complainant has cleared the loan amounts timely. OP tendered statement of account (Ex.R1 and Ex.R2). On perusal of documents Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 (statement of account) it made clear that complainant failed to repay the loan amount within time as prescribed in the agreement. Most of the installments were repaid by the complainant after due dates, upon which the OP imposed collection charges, legal charges, cheques dishonour charges that the complainant was bound to pay the said charges as per terms and conditions of the loan agreement.  As per statement of Account Ex.R2 an amount of Rs.74,437.64/- is due on 30.04.2017 and as per reply filed by OP, payment due counts to be Rs.87,965.12/- upto 31.10.2017. The complainant has failed to rebut the version of the OP. So, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

10.            In view of above discussion, we do not find any merits in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:16.04.2019

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

               

        (Vineet Kaushik)          (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

            Member                               Member

\