Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/201/2018

Manish Sehgal - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

In Person

07 Jan 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/201/2018
Date of Institution	:	03/05/2018
Date of Decision	:	08/01/2019

 

Manish Sehgal r/o House No.5, Sector 15-A, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

L&T Finance Ltd., Plot No.174, 4^th Floor, Phase-II, Industrial Area, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager, Chandigarh.

… Opposite Party

 

CORAM :	SHRI RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

                                        

                          

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person
	:	Sh. Gaurav Sharma, Counsel for OP

 

Per Rattan Singh Thakur, President

1.         The sum and substance of the allegations are, in the year 2012, the complainant had purchased a vehicle for his personal use and loan was raised of Rs.2,70,000/- from the OP which was to be repaid in 60 monthly installments of Rs.6,300/- each. The installment was started from 15.10.2012 and was to end/complete on 15.8.2017. The complainant had paid all the instalments within the time frame, but, in spite of that, OP showed a sum of Rs.15,000/- in the account of the complainant. The complainant had made one or two defaults, but had paid the same through cheques. After completion of installments on 15.8.2017, the complainant approached the OP to obtain the NOC, but, the same was not issued. Rather outstanding amount of Rs.15,000/- approximately was shown whereas nothing was due to the OP from the complainant. The OP had also sent the name of the complainant in the list of defaulters to the CIBIL which caused mental and physical harassment to the complainant. Hence, on these averments, deficiency in service is pleaded against the OP and prayer made for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.two lakhs. 
2.         OP has contested the consumer complaint and filed reply.  It was claimed, one installment of Rs.6,300/- is outstanding towards the complainant and the overtime charges which occurred on account of delayed payment of installment of Rs.6,864.53 and total Rs.13,164.53 still outstanding. It is also the case, in nutshell that the consumer complaint is frivolous and this amount is due and the complainant’s name was rightly shown in the defaulters list of CIBIL.  On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended.
3.         Replication was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
4.         Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.         We have heard the complainant in person, learned counsel for OP and gone through the record of the case.  After appraisal of record, our findings are as under:-
6.         The complainant in his pleadings has claimed that the advance installment of Rs.6,300/- has not been reflected in the books of account of the OP.  The OP had brought the documents on record in the form of Annexure OP-1 and had also shown a sum of Rs.63,164.54 is due to the OP from the complainant.  Not only this, so much so, the client statement as on 5.10.2018 has also been produced on record which shows the installments paid and its date.  The complainant has failed to show which of the installment paid has not been reflected in the account statement. If advance installment was paid, it was to be reflected in the account statement or any receipt ought to have been produced by the complainant which has not been done.
7.         There was also default in the payment and as per the agreement entered into inter se parties, some penalty was imposed which was permissive under the terms and conditions of the agreement.  Statements of account, referred to above, have been produced by the OP.  From the entries contained in the account books maintained in the ordinary course of business, no fault in these statements has been shown by the complainant so as to say, he has closed his account and the amount due is wrongly shown outstanding towards him. Therefore, since the complainant was a defaulter, his name was shown in the CIBIL record.  Unless the pointed out amount is paid by the complainant, his name cannot be removed from the defaulter’s list.
8.         In view of the above discussion, we find no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.  Resultantly, the present consumer complaint is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
9.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
08/01/2019	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
hg	Member	President