Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/559

Deep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

L&T Finanace Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Amit Tandon adv

05 Sep 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:559 dated 09.12.2019.                                                        Date of decision: 05.09.2022. 

 

Deep Singh son of Sh. Karamjeet Singh, resident of 116, Agwarh Gujjran, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                           ..…Complainant

•  

1. L & T Finance Limited, 7^th Floor, Technopolis A Wing, Plot No.4, Block-BP, Sector V, Salt Lake, Kolkata.
2. L & T Finance Limited, having its registered office Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana.

…..Opposite parties 

Complaint under Section 2, 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         Sh. Amit Tandon, Advocate.

For OPs                         :         Sh. Vyom Bansal, Advocate.

 

 ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that he got financed his vehicle from the OPs vide loan No.KGV126141R1400811239. The said loan was cleared and the OPs issued no due certificate as nothing remained due towards the complainant. After some time, the complainant again approached a vehicle agency to purchase some more vehicle which he wanted to get financed but the finance company refused to advance a loan to the complainant saying that the name of the complainant is entered in the column of CIBIL. Thereafter, the complainant approached the OPs and requested them to remove his name from the CIBIL but to no avail. This amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. In the end, it has been requested that the OPs be directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- along with litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-  for deficiency of service on their part.

2.                The complaint has been resisted by the OPs. In the written filed on behalf of OPs, it has been pleaded that a vehicle loan of Rs.2,19,500/- was sanctioned to the complainant which was repayable by way of EMIs of Rs.6350/- each w.e.f. 10.07.2014. The complainant defaulted continuously in payment of installments of loan and his cheques used to get dishonoured regularly. As a result, the loan became non-performing asset and the hypothecated vehicle was repossessed and subsequently sold on 30.04.2016  with net loss of Rs.1,61,568.13. Thereafter, the complainant approached the OP to settle the outstanding loan for a total of Rs.50,000/- and expressed his inability to pay the full amount. Considering the request of the complainant, the OPs accepted Rs.50,000/- as full and final settlement towards outstanding amount. As per the CIBIL score dated 28.01.2020, there is no adverse entry from the OPs which might have been reported to CIBIL. Therefore, no case of deficiency of service is made out on the part of the OPs and the complaint has been filed just to harass the OPs. The other averments made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

3.                The complainant did not formally tendered any evidence but submitted affidavit Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C4 in support of the complaint.

4.                On the other hand, the counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit Ex. RA along with documents Ex. R1 and Ex. R2 and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully.

6.                Primarily, the grievance of the complainant is that despite the fact that he had paid the entire loan amount to the OPs, they did not intimate the CIBIL authorities that the loan by the complainant has been paid in entirety which has resulted in poor rating of he complainant in CIBIL terms which amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. Surprisingly, the complainant has claimed in the complaint that he cleared all dues and obtained no due certificate from the OPs in respect of the loan availed by him. However, the OPs in the written statement have specifically pleaded that the complainant availed loan of Rs.2,19,500/- which was payable by way of equated monthly installments of Rs.6350/- each. The OPs have further stated in the written statement that the complainant defaulted in the payment of installments and the loan became non-performing asset and the hypothecated vehicle was repossessed and sold on 30.04.2016  with net loss of Rs.1,61,568.13. The OP has also stated that later on, the complainant requested to settle the loan on payment of Rs.50,000/- as he was unable to pay the remaining outstanding amount and the offer of the complainant was accepted by the OPs. The complainant has not filed any replication to rebut these allegations. It is well settled that if a fact is not controverted, this deemed to have been admitted. Therefore, it can be taken to have been proved on record that as a matter of fact, the loan availed by the complainant had gone NPA with the result his vehicle was repossessed and sold and even after sale of the vehicle, the sold amount was outstanding and later on, the complainant paid Rs.50,000/- towards settlement of the loan which was accepted and NOC was issued by the OPs.

7.                It is a matter of common knowledge that CIBIL score is a sort of rating of a person, firm or company and is based upon the dealings of a particular individual, firm or company particularly the conduct with regard to repayment of loans raised from a financial institution like banks, non-banking finance companies etc. The complainant has not placed on record any document showing his CIBIL rating. However, the OPs have placed on record document Ex. R2 wherein under the head of account details, it is clearly mentioned that no past dues of the complainant were pending against L & T Finance Company Limited as on 30.04.2016. This information in Ex. R2 must have been recorded on the information supplied by the OPs. The score of the complainant is stated to be 608. Even if the CIBIL score of the complainant is not as per norms, it cannot be attributed to the OPs. Rather it is attributable to the fact that he had committed default in repayment of loan raised from the OPs with the result that his vehicle was to be sold off for recovery of loan amount. Therefore, no case of deficiency of service can be said to have been made out against the OPs.

8.                As a result of above discussion, the complain fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

9.                Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:05.09.2022.

Gobind Ram.

Deep Singh Vs L&T Finance Limited                                      CC/19/559 

Present:       Sh. Amit Tandon, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh. Vyom Bansal, Advocate for the OPs.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complain fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:05.09.2022.

Gobind Ram.