Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/21/82

Dilver - Complainant(s)

Versus

L & T Finance Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Munish Kumar

30 Jul 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No:82 dated 19.02.2021.                                 Date of decision: 30.07.2024.

 

Dilver @ Dilver Khan S/o. Nek Mohomad, House no.9, Ward no.21, Prem Street No.1, Malerkotla Road, Guru Harkrishan Nagar, Khanna, District Ludhiana (Punjab).                                                                                                                                                                       ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. L&T Finance Limited, Brindavan, CST Road, Kalina Santacruz (East), Mumbai-400098 through its Chairman & Managing Director,
2. Chairperson, L&T Finance Limited, SCO 10-11, @nd Floor, Ferozgandhi Market, Distt. Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                    …..Opposite parties 

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Munish Kumar, Advocate.

For OPs                          :         Sh. Vyom Bansal, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                In brief, the facts of the case are that the complainant purchased Tata Ace Zip vehicle in June 2013 by getting a loan of Rs.2,19,500/- from the OPs for a tenure of 4 years having 47 installments of Rs.6538/- each.  The loan installments were being regularly deducted from the savings bank account of  the complainant bearing No.117600101005511 with Corporation Bank, Khanna. The last installment was to be debited on 10.06.2017 through auto debit for which the complainant maintained sufficient balance in his account. The complainant stated that for next 8-9 months, he kept on asking the OPs for issuing NOC and other formalities. However, the OPs with malafide intention did not debit the last installment from his account and on 10.05.2018 few representatives of the OPs came to him and asked him for bringing the vehicle at OP office at Ludhiana to get the NOC after completing formalities in the office at Ludhiana. On 12.05.2018, the complainant along with his cousin brother visited the OP office where the representatives of the OPs misbehaved with the complainant due to non-payment of last loan installment and even they snatched the vehicle from the complainant and parked the same in their yard at Sri Ram Auto Mall Parking Yard, Ludhiana. The OPs asked the complainant to pay Rs.12,000/- to get the vehicle released. The complainant deposited Rs.12,000/- with the OPs on the same day but the OPs did not release his vehicle due to Saturday and asked the complainant to come on Monday. Thereafter, the representatives of the OPs released the vehicle and issued the NOC etc. The complainant claimed to have suffered mental harassment and torture due to misbehavior of the representative of the OPs.

                   The complainant further stated that as he was in need of loan amount of Rs.3,00,000/- for another vehicle for which he visited IndusInd Bank who refused to give the loan due to bad CIBIL record on account of default of payment of installment to &T Finance Company. Due to negligence and deficiency in service of the OPs, the complainant has suffered mental agony, torture and monetary loss for which the OPs are liable to pay compensation to the complainant. The complainant several times called the OPs at their customer care with request to correct his CIBIL score but no action has been taken by the OPs till date. In the end, the complainant has prayed for issuing directions to the OPs to correct his CIBIL report cum profile by updation the report of loan and to refund Rs.5462/- taken in excess by the OPs. The complainant also prayed for issuing directions to the OPs to pay compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- and Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Upon notice, the OPs appeared and filed joint written statement and by taking preliminary objections, assailed the complaint on the ground of its maintainability as per Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; the complainant is not consumer of the OPs; lack of jurisdiction; suppression of material facts; the complainant has not come with clean hands etc.

                   Under the column Factual Submission, the OPs stated that the Complainant approached them for availing a Commercial Vehicle loan for purchase of TATA MAGIC IRIS vide Application Form No.: RPF183819 and accordingly a Loan of Rs.2,19,500/- was sanctioned in favour of the complainant. The complainant entered in a Loan-cum written Hypothecation Agreement No: KGB127141R1300663118 executed between the parties, which was duly signed by the Borrower/Co-Borrower and thereafter, the amount was disbursed in his favour. The OPs further stated that the said loan was to be re-paid in monthly EMI of Rs. 6538/- each w.e.f 10.08.2013 including interest and loan installments. As per the schedule of repayment, the complainant defaulted the installment of the loan amount and his cheque/ECS used to get dishonored regularly and the EMI due on 10.06.2017 was presented by them but was returned by bank of the complainant and upon verbal request of the complainant was re-presented which was again returned unpaid by the bank of the complainant both time for the reason "Balance Insufficient". Thereafter, the complainant did not deposit the outstanding installment thus the hypothecated vehicle was repossessed on 12.05.2018. Then the complainant approached the OPs to settle the loan outstanding for total of Rs.12,000/- and expressed his desire to deposit the same. The complainant deposited outstanding amount and thereafter, the vehicle was released to the complainant on 14.05.2018. Even No Dues Certificate dated 19.06.2018 was also issued to the complainant. The OPs produced CIBIL response 20.07.2021 of the complainant stating that there is no adverse entry from their side reported to the CIBIL. The OPs further stated that they have rendered full services to the complainant.

                   On merits, the OPs reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections and factual submission. The OPs have denied that there is any deficiency of service and have also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                In support of his claim, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex. CA in which he reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered documents Ex. C1 is the copy of RC bearing No.PB10EH4886, Ex. C2 is the copy of Aadhar Card of the complainant, Ex. C3 is the copy of passbook of Corporation Bank, Ex. C4 is the copy of statement of account of loan account of the complainant, Ex. C5 is the copy of No Dues Certificate dated 19.01.2018, Ex. C6 is the copy of inventory of the items in vehicle, Ex. C7 is the copy of release letter dated 14.05.2018, Ex. C8 is the copy of customer copy of deposit of Rs.12,000/- as well as CIBIL score, Ex. C9 is the copy of CIBIL Credit report and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Arun Kumar, Authorised Officer of OP at Ludhiana along with documents Ex. R1 is the copy of application form dated 12.06.2013, Ex. R2 is the copy of Loan cum Hypothecation Agreement, Ex. R3 is the copy of account statement, Ex. R4 is the copy of cheque returning memo dated 19.06.2017, Ex. R5 is the copy of cheque returning memo dated 12.06.2017, Ex. R6 is the copy of CIBIL report of the complainant and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents and written reply along with affidavit and documents produced on record by both the parties. We have also gone through written arguments submitted by the complainant.

6.                Admittedly, the hypothecated vehicle bearing No.PB10-EH-4886 of the complainant was repossessed by the representatives of the OP on 12.05.2018 on account of default of repayment of last EMI. The vehicle was redelivered to the complainant on 14.05.2018 when the outstanding loan amount of Rs.12,000/- was cleared by the complainant. The OPs have substantially complied with the conditions mentioned under head note “Consequences of Default and Termination” of Loan cum Hypothecation Agreement Ex. R2. The complainant has not specifically challenged the act of repossession in the present complaint and has confined his grievance regarding the excess payment of Rs.5462/-. The complainant was required to lead evidence that how this amount of Rs.5462/- was excessively charged by the OPs, but he has failed to do so.

7.                The other grievance of the complainant that the act and conduct of the OPs had adversely affected his CIBIL profile. The CIBIL (Credit Information Bureau India Limited) a three digit numeric summary of one’s credit history. A good CIBIL score is a score between 700 to 900, which means that the borrower has a higher chance of getting a higher loan amount at a low interest rate. The counsel for the complainant has drawn attention of this Commission towards Credit Score report March 2020 Ex. C9 wherein it is mentioned that “1 of your accounts is negatively impacting your credit score.” In the said report itself, outstanding amount Rs.0/- has been mentioned against the name of the OP. However, there is a remark that there was a delay of 321 days in repayment of the loan. On the other hand, the counsel for the OPs has drawn attention of this Commission on the details extracted from Transaction Response Reports Ex. R4 and Ex. R5 wherein the loan repayment transactions were failed and rejected due to insufficient balance in the account of the complainant. Further the CIBIL report generated on 20.07.2021 Ex. R6 shows that the credit score in the name of the complainant is 800 and in the summary of accounts the current balance of the loan advanced by the OPs has been shown to be Zero. The score of 800 is normally considered to be an excellent score and does not eclipse the eligibility of the complainant to raise further loan. So the complainant has failed to discharge initial onus to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs by any cogent and convincing evidence.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its judgment in SGS India Ltd. Vs Dolphin International Ltd. in Civil Appeal No.5759 of 2009 decided on 06.10.2021 (LL 2021 SC 544) by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India while relying upon on its own judgment reported as Ravneet Singh Bagga v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines & Anr. As well as Indigo Airlines v. Kalpana Rani Debbarma & Ors. (LL 2021 SC 544), has held as under:-

“19. The onus of proof of deficiency in service is on the complainant in the complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is the complainant who had approached the Commission, therefore, without any proof of deficiency, the opposite party cannot be held responsible for deficiency in service.”

 

8.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint 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 huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

(Monika Bhagat)                                (Sanjeev Batra)

Member                                                President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:30.07.2024.

Gobind Ram.