Haryana

Karnal

CC/236/2015

Manpreet Singh S/o Gurbaj Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sewa Singh Waralch

12 Dec 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL. 

                                                     Complaint No. 236 of 2015

                                                    Date of instt. 01.10.2015

                                                     Date of decision 12.12.2017

 

Manpreet Singh son of late Shri Gurbaj Singh, resident of village Budha Khera, Tehsil and District Karnal.

                                                                                 ……..Complainant.

                                        Versus

 

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., SCO no.153-155, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager/Authorized person.

                                                   

     ..…Opposite Party.

 

 Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

 

Before     Sh. Jagmal Singh…….President.

                Ms. Veena Rani……….Member

                Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:  Shri Sewa Singh Advocate for the complainant.

                Shri G.S.Khillan Advocate for opposite party.

              

               

                (JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT)

 

 ORDER:

 

                This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, on the averments father of complainant late Shri Gurbaj Singh had taken loan from OP for AMW-Tipper bearing registration no.HR-45A-7674, vide loan account no.CE244183, vide loan agreement dated 25.2.2011 and another loan for JCB bearing registration no.HR-45B-1518, vide loan account no.CE-373813, vide Loan Agreement dated 30.8.2012. Shri Gurbaj Singh during his life time cleared the amount of loan of Tipper and said Shri Gurbaj Singh expired on 28.5.2015. After his death, loan of abovesaid JCB has been cleared by the complainant. Both the loan have been cleared. Complainant visited the OP so many times and requested to issue the NOC regarding the abovesaid two loan, but OP did not pay any heed to his request and postponing the matter on one pretext or the other. Then complainant sent a legal notice dated 11.8.2015 through his counsel in that regard, but to no effect. In this way there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice 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 statement raising preliminary objections with regard to locus standi; maintainability and is estopped by his own act and conduct. On merits, it has been submitted that deceased Gurbaj Singh stood guarantor to one Satish Kumar, who procured a loan of Rs.15,59,000/- on 3.6.20123, vide loan agreement no.CV 2603374. An amount of Rs.10,00,000/-is still pending against Shri Satish Kumar being principal debtor and the deceased Gurbaj Singh being guarantor which are to be recovered from the applicant as well as other legal heir of the deceased. Hence complainant is not entitled for ‘No Objection Certificate’ regarding the vehicles in question. Hence there was no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and closed the evidence on 23.12.2016.

4.             On the other hand, OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Kanwar Chaudhary Ex.OA and documents Ex.O1 and Ex.O2 and closed the evidence on 6.9.2017.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

6.             From the pleadings, it is clear that the father of the complainant namely late Shri Gurbaj Singh had taken loan from OP for AMW-Tipper having registration no.HRA-7674 vide loan account no.CE-244183, loan agreement dated 25.2.2011 and another loan for JCB bearing registration no.HR-45B-1518, vide loan account no.CE-373813, loan agreement dated 30.8.2012.

7.             According to the complainant, Gurbaj Singh had cleared the loan amount of the Tipper during his life time and said Gurbaj Singh expired on 28.5.2015. After the death of his father, the loan of the JCB have been cleared by the complainant. Hence both the loan have been cleared. It has further been alleged by the complainant inspite of repeated requests the OP did not give the NOC about the abovesaid two loans. The complainant has also served a legal notice upon the OP, but the OP has not issued the NOC for both the said loans.

8.             The OP denied allegations of the clearance of both the loans in question. The OP further contended that deceased Gurbaj Singh stood guarantor to one Satish Kumar son of Shri Jyoti Ram resident of Subri, District Karnal, who procured a loan of Rs.15,59,000/- on 3.6.2012, vide loan agreement no.CV-2603374 and said Satish Kumar did not stick to the schedule for payment of loan as such as amount of Rs.10 lakhs is still pending against said Satish Kumar being principal debtor and deceased Gurbaj Singh being guarantor which are to be recovered from the complainant as well as other legal heir of the deceased Gurbaj Singh. The OP further contended that complainant is not entitled for NOC regarding the vehicle as the balance amount of loan is still due towards the LRs of deceased Gurbaj Singh.

 

9.             To prove its case, the complainant produced in his evidence, affidavit Ex.CW1/A, Ex.C-1 death certificate of Gurbaj Singh, legal notice Ex.C-2, Acknowledgement Ex.C-3, Postal receipt Ex.C-4, Statement of account of Gurbaj Singh for loan account no.CE-373813 as Ex.C5 and for account no.264183 regarding vehicle no.HR-45-A-7674 as Ex.C-6. The death certificate Ex.C-1 proved that Gurbaj Singh died on 28.5.2015. The accounts statements Ex.C-5 and Ex.C-6 proved that nothing is due regarding the loan of vehicle no.HR-45B-1518 and HR-45A-7674. On the other hand, the OP has produced only the statement of account of Satish Kumar as Ex.O-1 and Ex.O-2 besides affidavit. The OP has not produced any document, vide which it can be proved that any amount of the loan of Gurbaj Singh deceased was pending. So the contention of OP that the balance amount of loan is still due towards the LRs of deceased Gurbaj Singh has no force.

10.           It is pertinent to mention here that the document Ex.O-1 and Ex.O-2 produced on the file by OP, were issued on 25.7.2014, whereas the same are tendered in evidence on 6.9.2017. It is further pertinent to mention here that at the time of remaining argument , the learned counsel for the complainant produced an affidavit of abovesaid Satish Kumar. In this affidavit, it is stated by said Satish Kumar that he has taken a loan of Rs.15,59,000/- on 3.6.2012, vide loan agreement no.CU-2603374 for purchasing a chasis of Dumper from Tata Motors bearing registration no.HR-05B-0852 and the said Dumper was taken into possession by the OP forcibly from Saharanpur in the month of September, 2014. It is further stated that he had also taken loan for other Dumper no.HR-05A-7652 and said Dumper had also been repossessed by the OP in March, 2014. It is further stated that both the Dumper has been sold by the OP without notice to him or guarantor. It is further stated that no notice has been issued by the OP for recovering of loan due, if any.

11.           From the above affidavit, it is clear that the OP has repossessed the vehicle from the owner Satish Kumar in September, 2014. It is pertinent to mention here that the OP has placed on the file document Ex.O-1 and Ex.O-2 issued on 25.7.2014 showing the loan pending of said Satish Kumar, whereas the written statement was filed by the OP on 17.5.2016. As already stated above, these documents were tendered into evidence on 6.9.2017. Therefore, the said statements of account of Satish Kumar should have been contained the detail upto August, 2017 or atleast upto April, 2016 when the written statement was filed on 17.5.2016 but the detail as stated by Satish Kumar in his affidavit are not mentioned in the written statement. So due to this reason the above affidavit of Satish Kumar is necessary to be taken into consideration. The OP has not produced any document that what was due against said Satish Kumar in May, 2016 when the OP filed the reply to the present complaint. The learned counsel for complainant has produced an authority of the Hon’ble Delhi Commission in case titled as Mahender Pratap Sharma Versus 1. Govind Ram Handa 2. Volex Finance & Industries Ltd. decided on 23.9.2008, wherein in para no. 12 of the order it is mentioned that “in such cases we have also taken view that the moment the vehicle is re-possessed the liability of the consumer, future and post liability, stands discharged and the consumer is entitle for refund of the margin money contributed by him towards the purchase of the vehicle in question. In view of this authority and the affidavit of said Satish Kumar, it is clear that future and past liability of said Satish Kumar stands discharged because the vehicle of said Satish Kumar had been re-possessed by the OP. When the liability of Satish Kumar has been discharged, then the liability of guarantor (i.e. the father of complainant) has also been discharged. In these facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the OP has not come with clean hands before this Forum and concealed the material facts and tried to mislead this Forum. Even otherwise, the father of the complainant was the guarantor and the vehicles of the complainant were not kept as security. Therefore, the OP was liable to issue the NOC of both the vehicles as and when the loan amounts were cleared. But the OP has not issued the NOC inspite of the repeated request and legal notice of the complainant, therefore, the OP was deficient.

12.           Thus, as a sequel of abovesaid discussions, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP to issue NOC of both the vehicles in question within 30 days from the date of order till its realization. We further direct the OP to pay Rs.5500/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 12.12.2017

                                                                  

                                                                  President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                        Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

                        (Veena Rani)       (Anil Sharma)

                          Member                Member