DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No.  114 of 3.4.2017

                                      Decided on: 17.9.2021

Gurpreet Singh aged about 32 years s/o Jarnail Singh R/o Village Salluwal P.O.Rajgarh the, Nabha, District Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

Krishana Finance Co. (Regd.) Ghass Mandi, Nabha-147201 through its Prop.

                                                                   …………Opposite Party.

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act

QUORUM

                                      Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                                      Dr.Harman Shergill Sullar,Member 

ARGUED BY

                                       Sh.Gaurav Bansal, counsel for complainant.

                                      Sh.Dhiraj Puri, counsel for OP.

 ORDER

                                      JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT

1. The brief facts of the case are that the OP has been dealing in sale of second hands goods and also provide finance for purchase of new and second hands motor cycle.
2. It is averred that complainant is a rustic villager and he only knows to sign the documents. It is further averred that he purchased one second hand motor cycle make Hero Honda splendor vide registration No.PB-65L-1486 and paid Rs.14000/- in advance on 26.7.2013.It  is averred that no receipt in this regard was issued by the OP. It is further averred that the complainant paid the remaining amount of Rs.22,000/- in 18 installments of Rs.1665/-each. It is further averred that at the time of financing the second hand motor cycle the OP took signature of the complainant on blank papers. It is further averred that the despite making the payment of Rs.50,000/-, the OP made further demand. The complainant demanded the account detail to which the OP refused and picked up the motor cycle from the custody of the complainant on 7.2.2017. The complainant approached the SHO Sadar Nabha for registration of case against the OP by moving the application dated 9.2.2017 in this regard but no action was taken. The complainant also got sent legal notice dated 1.3.2017 but no reply was given by the OP. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving directions to the OP to handover the motor cycle in question to the complainant; to pay Rs.25000/-as compensation and Rs.10,000/-as costs of litigation.
3. Upon notice OP appeared and filed the written reply having raised preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed under Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act.
4. On merits , it is submitted that the complainant availed three different loans bearing C. No.588 of  Rs.22,000/- and this amount was debited through cheque No.249677 from the bank account of the OP on 8.8.2013 which was to be repaid in 18 monthly installments of Rs.1665/-each. Second loan bearing account No.966 of Rs.16000/- was debited through cheque No.287735 and was to be repaid in 15 monthly installment of Rs.1390/-each and third loan No.1220 of Rs.16000/- was paid through cheque No.306940 on 18.3.2016.It is further pleaded that the complainant has failed to repay the entire amount and is liable to pay the outstanding amount. After denying all other averments, the Op has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
5. In support of the complaint, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to 34 and closed the evidence.
6. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Chetan Chhatwal, authorized signatory alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP3 and has closed the evidence.
7. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
8.  The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the OP is dealing in sale of second hands goods and also provides finance for purchase of new and second hand motor cycle. The ld. counsel further argued that the complainant is a rustic villager and only used to sign the documents. The ld. counsel further argued that the complainant purchased 2^nd hand motor cycle having registration No.PB-65L-1486 by advancing Rs.14000/- on 26.7.2013 and further made the payment of Rs.22000/- by way of installments of Rs.1665/-each. The ld. counsel further argued that at the time of advancing the loan, the OP took blank signatures cheques. The ld. counsel further argued that the complainant had paid the amount of Rs.50,000/- by paying the following installments regularly:

The ld. counsel further argued that now the OP has been demanding more amount, which is illegal. So the complaint be allowed.

9. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP has argued that the complainant has purchased the 2^nd hand motor cycle make Hero Honda Splendor vide registration No.PB-65L-1486 after advancing Rs.14000/- on 26.7.2013.The ld. counsel further argued that the complainant has taken three different loans i.e. of Rs.22,000/- and this amount was debited through cheque No.249677 on 8.8.2013, which was to be repaid in 18 installments of Rs.1665/-each. The ld. counsel further argued that 2^nd loan No.966 of Rs.16000/- was debited through cheque No.287735 and was to be repaid in 15 installments of Rs.1390/- and the third loan was paid through cheque No.306940 on 18.3.2016.The ld. counsel further argued that the complainant never repaid the loan. So the complaint be dismissed.
10. To prove this case, the complainant has tendered  in evidence his affidavit, Ex.CA and he has deposed as per his entire complaint.Ex.C1 is the receipt vide which the loan of Rs.22000/-was given and was to be repaid in 18 installments of Rs.1665/-each,Ex.C2 is RC, Ex.C3 to Ex.C30 are the receipts vide which the complainant  made the payment to Krishna Finance Co.Ex.C31 is the application, moved by the complainant to SHO, Sadar, Nabha against the OP, Ex.C32 is the legal notice,Ex.C33 is postal receipt,Ex.C34 is pass book of Canara Bank.
11. On the other hand Sh.Chetan Chhatwal, authorized signatory has filed his affidavit, Ex.OPA and he has deposed as per the written statement. It is admitted that the complainant purchased one old motor cycle but he has availed three loans .Ex.OP1 to OP3 are the accounts statements of Axis Bank.
12. By going through entire evidence and hearing of both the parties, it is proved that the complainant has purchased one old motor cycle and he took loan of Rs.22,000/- to be repaid in 18 installments and the complainant has attached receipts Exs.C3 to C30 vide which he has paid the installments from 4.8.2013 to 6.11.2016.The complainant has moved an application Ex.C31 to the police for taking action against the OP and he also served legal notice Ex.C32 to the OP but no reply was sent to the legal notice. This legal notice was sent through registered post vide postal receipt Ex.C33, in which he has clearly stated that he has purchased one old motor cycle and has taken loan of Rs.22,000/- and repaid the same by way of installments of Rs.1665/-each,
13. Admittedly only one motor cycle was purchased having registration No.PB-65L-1486 and OP advanced Rs.46,000/- on 26.7.2013 and the complainant made 18 installments of Rs.1665/- each. But as per the OP the complainant has taken three loans on one motor cycle and two loans are still outstanding. But there is no document executed between the parties to show that infact the complainant took three loan on one old motor cycle and this story creates doubt that a person shall take three loans on one old motor cycle.There is no loan agreement on the file.
14. All the procedure under Consumer Protection Act is summary in nature and there is no cross examination of any witness and also there is no examination of documents produced by the parties. This is a peculiar case and there is some doubt about the genuineness of the story of the OP and this matter has to be adjudicated by the Ld. Civil Court as in the Civil Court the OP will have to produce all the loan documents executed with the complainant while taking three loans on one old motor cycle and the witnesses shall be subjected to cross examination on the OP and the parties shall also cross examine the witnesses of the documents which shall be produced by both the parties. It is also settled law that if, there is complex questions, the parties must  approach Civil Court for the proper adjudication and as already discussed above, this matter can be adjudicated by the Civil Court as whole story look full of doubt  as put by the OP. It is not possible that a person shall take three loans on a one single motor cycle and complainant has placed all the receipts vide which he has repaid the amount to the OP.
15. So due to our above discussion, the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs and the complainant is at liberty to move the Civil Court to adjudicate the matter as this matter can only be adjudicated by detailed evidence that whether the complainant has taken three loans or not.
108605146108.  

DATED:17.9.2021

                                       Dr.Harman Shergill Sullar    Jasjit Singh Bhinder

                                                   Member                                 President