DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 288 of 2.12.2015
Decided on: 11.5.2017
Ramesh Kumar S/o Sh.Amar Singh resident of village Theh Newal Tehsil Guhla District Kaithal.
…………...Complainant
Versus
1. Magma Finance Corporation Ltd., Rajbaha Road, Opposite CMO Office, Patiala through its Administrator/Manager.
2. Magma Finance Corporation Ltd.,S.C.O. 75,Second Floor, Phase 9 Mohali, through its Manager.
…………Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.T.M.Sayal,Advocate, counsel for complainant.
Sh.Vikas Mittal,Advocate,
counsel for Opposite party No.1
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Sh. Ramesh Kumar has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.) .The brief facts of the complaint are as under:-
2. That the complainant raised a loan of Rs.18,24,000/- from OP No.1 with a view to purchase vehicle bearing registration No.HR 64/5296 vide Proposal No.PG/0042/V/09/000245 and agreement No.HO/G/0042/09/000245. He cleared the financed amount alongwith interest having paid a total sum of Rs.22,13,176/- and nothing was due against him. He approached the OPs for the issuance of Form No.35/ clearance certificate for getting the hypothecation deleted from the concerned D.T.O. but the OPs did not pay any heed to his request. As such he was suffering from mental agony and physical harassment. Hence this complaint with a prayer for a direction to the OPs to issue the clearance certificate/Form No.35, to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses .
3. Cognizance of the complaint was taken against OP no.1 only, who on put to notice appeared and filed the written version. It is admitted that the complainant took a loan from it. It is submitted that the complainant stood as guarantor in another cases in which the loan amount is due and as per its policy, No Objection Certificate, cannot be given in case the amount remains due in any of the cases, in which the hirer stood as co-hirer or guarantor. As per term No.8 of the Policy, which reads as under as under:
“If the hiring continue for the full period as referred to in Schedulehereto and the following sums of money have been particularly paid:-
- All installments due under this Agreement
- Any other sums of money due hereunder this agreement by the hirer/s to MAGMA
Then in that event MAGAMA shall release and relinquish all its rights and interest in the said asset(s) in favour of hirer/s but until such payments, MAGMA shall continue to have all right and interest created by these presents over the said asset(s) together with any accession, improvements and additions made hereto by the hirer/s and the rights of the hirer/s shall be subject to the beneficial right of the MAGMA and shall be deemed to be holding the said asset(s) as custodian of MAGMA.
Notwithstanding anything contained herein, the hirer/s agrees that the said asset/s shall also stand a security for any other agreement(s) the hirer(s) has executed with MAGMA either in the capacity of hirer/ borrower, co-hirer/co-borrower or as guarantor and MAGMA shall have the right to refuse no-dues certificate to the hirer/s in respect of said asset(s) even after the hirer/s has paid all the dues under this agreement provided that there is current or future dues in the other agreement executed by the hirer/s with MAGMA as aforesaid”.
In the present complaint, the complainant stood as guarantor for Gurmeet Singh in two loan accounts i.e. HO/G/0042/09/000568 and HO/G/0042/10/000131, in which amounts are due to be paid to the OP. Thus the OP has every right to retain the ‘No Objection Certificate’ unless and until the loan accounts in which the complainant stood guarantor has been totally cleared. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and it is prayed that complaint may be dismissed.
4. In support of the complaint, the ld. counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C3 and closed the evidence.
The ld. counsel for the Op No1 tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, affidavit of Harpreet Singh alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP4 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
6. The ld. counsel for the complainant submitted that after paying the entire loan amount, the complainant requested the Ops to issue form No.35/Clearance Certificate, so as to enable him to get the endorsement of hypothecation deleted from the D.T.O. but the O.Ps did not pay any heed to his requests. This act of the O.Ps. amounts to deficiency in service and the O.Ps have also indulged into unfair trade practice.
7. The ld. counsel for the O.P no.1 has submitted that no doubt the complainant had paid the entire loan amount, since he stood guarantor for the borrower namely Gurmeet Singh, as is evident from the hire purchase agreement, the said borrower has not cleared his loan, therefore, as per clause 8 of Hire Purchase Agreement, he is not entitled to get the ‘No Objection Certificate’. The complaint filed by the complainant is devoid of merit and same may be dismissed with costs.
8. It is an admitted fact that the complainant repaid the entire loan amount and the Ops cleared his loan account. However, from the perusal of hire purchase agreement executed between Sh.Gurmeet Singh and the Ops, it is evident that Sh.Ramesh Kumar stood guarantor for Sh.Gurmeet Singh.From the statement of account,Ex.OP2, it is evident that said Sh.Gurmeet Singh has not cleared his loan account till the filing of the complaint by the complainant.It is settled law that parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the agreement. As per term no.8 of the agreement which is as under:
‘Release of Property’
- Notwithstanding anything contained herein, the hirer/s agrees that the said asset/s shall also stand a security for any other agreement(s) the hirer(s) has executed with MAGMA either in the capacity of hirer/ borrower, co-hirer/co-borrower or as guarantor and MAGMA shall have the right to refuse no-dues certificate to the hier/s in respect of said asset(s) even after the hirer/s has paid all the dues under this agreement provided that there is current or future dues in the other agreement executed by the hirer/s with MAGMA as aforesaid”.
Thus as per aforesaid term no.8 of the agreement, Ops are not liable to issue ‘No Due Certificate’ to the complainant.
9. In this view of the matter, we do not find any merit, in the complaint. Accordingly, we dismiss the same without any order as to costs. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED:11.5.2017
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
