On 04/12/2018 the complainant has filed the complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he purchased a Tractor from O.P.No-3 which was financed by O.P.No-1 for the purpose of agriculture and the agreement was made on 11.09.2015 with a proposal No.PG/0073/A/14/000221, dated 10th Sept. 2015, Mark-ACE, Model-D1550DC616149X 28, 50 HP, Invoice No.NE/B/06/2015, Total Cost-6,35,000/-, Financed amount-4,24,366/-, Installment Rs.13,550/- per month. He paid Rs.13,550/- per month from 01/10/2015 up to 01/01/2017 and thereafter, petitioner went to the office of the O.P.No-1 for payment of the outstanding dues and the O.P.No-1 informed the complainant that outstanding dues was Rs.3,59,512/-. On 20/01/2017 the complainant deposited Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.59,500/- from RTGS in favour of Magma Fincorp Ltd Eft. dated 20/01/2017 and transaction No.BRC/SG/0001/0115/00011563&BRC/SG/0001/0115/00006294 and the transaction date was on 21/01/2017 and 28/01/2017 on instrument No.201580, 6978 remaining balance Rs.3,46,010/- and outstanding Rs.12/- was paid by the complainant to the account of O.P.No-2 on 20/01/2017 that is on 20/01/2017 the complainant paid full outstanding dues to the O.P.Nos-1 & 2 and a statement was issued by them and closing balance of Rs.12/- in their statement “Closure”.
Further case of the complainant is that at the time of finance agreement the petitioner deposited five blank cheques bearing nos.194601,194602, 194603, 194604 and 194605 in favour of the O.P.Nos-1 & 2. After payment of outstanding dues the complainant requested to stop payment against all the cheques. Inspite of payment of all outstanding dues of Rs.3,59,512/- on 20/01/2017 the O.P.Nos-1 & 2 did not issue clearance certificate in favour of the complainant and as such the complainant suffered from harassment and mental pain and agony.
Upon this background the complainant has prayed for order to the O.P for closure of the account and to issue clearance certificate along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- for his mental pain and agony and harassment.
Inspite of having received of the notice the O.P.No-3 did not appear to contest the case and as such, the case was heard ex parte against him.
O.P.Nos-1 & 2 has contested the case by filing written statement denying all the material allegations contending inter alia that the case is not maintainable in its present form and manner and that the complainant has no reason to file the case and that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the case as the complainant has to file this case in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Malda.
The specific case of the O.P.Nos-1 & 2 is that the complainant purchased a tractor and approached towards opposite parties in Malda for getting finance and the opposite party accepted the said proposal and financed of Rs.4,24,366/- and it was agreed that the complainant would repay the entire amount in 48 installments amounting to Rs.13,550/- each. The complainant paid 16 installments properly. Thereafter, in January 2017 the complainant in his own calculation paid Rs.3,59,500/- to the O.P Company and make payment of Rs.12/- and requested for closure of his loan account. It is further case of the O.Ps that without approval of higher authority, O.P.No-1 did not able to close the loan account as because as per norms outstanding dues calculated by his higher authority and as such the O.P.No-1 stated to the complainant that he paid Rs.3,59,500/- and Rs.12/- as per his own whim but without approval of higher authority. The O.P No-1 did nothing as because at that time O.P.No-1 was quite in dark about the outstanding loan amount of the complainant. Subsequently O.P Company informed that complainant has some dues towards the O.P Company and if he want to get the NOC he has to pay the amount to O.P Company within proper time, failing which interest and other charges will be increased. Thereafter, the complainant remain keep mum for some days and filed this case by stating all false and fabricated story. The total outstanding amount of the petitioner was Rs.1,04,423/- towards O.P Company up to 25.05.2019 and the O.P.Nos-1 & 2 mentioned calculation of outstanding amount in Para 10 of the W.V.
Upon this background the O.Ps prayed for dismissal of the case.
Is s u e s f o r d e c i s i o n s
- Has the complainant any cause of action to file this case?
- Has this Commission any jurisdiction to try the case?
- Is the case maintainable in its present form and prayer?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief as prayed for?
D e c i s i o n s w i t h r e a s o n
The complainant Shri Hare Krishna Poddar has been examined and cross examined as PW1, Mrinmoy Roy has been examined and cross examined as PW2 on behalf of the complainant. One Sandip Kumar Upadhyay has been examined as O.P.W1 and complainant has filed the questionnaires to the O.P.W1 and O.P filed the reply of questionnaires. The complainant has filed xerox copies of documents. O.P has filed documents which have been marked Exhibit-A & B.
Issue Nos:-1 & 2:-
These two issues are taken up together for consideration as they are related to each other.
At the time of hearing of arguments neither party advanced any arguments in respect of these two issues. However, considering the case mentioned in the complaint and the W.V it is clear that there are bundle of facts are involved in this case. Therefore, the materials on record disclosed that the complainant has the cause of action for the case. The W.V disclosed that the agreement executed in Malda and loan was disbursed from Malda Office and the O.P finance company has no office at Raiganj and that is why this Commission has no jurisdiction to try the case rather which ought to be filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Malda. But from the complaint it is found that the tractor in question was purchased from the O.P.No-3 who was carrying his business at Raiganj, dist:- Uttar Dinajpur. Apart from it, the business transaction specially the cheque and other cash has been paid to the O.P.No-1 through the bank situated at Raiganj. According to Section 11(2) (b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 this Commission (Forum) has jurisdiction to try the case. The said provisions disclosed that “any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or carry on business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be acquiesce in such institution; or the Section-11 (2) (c) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 disclosed that the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. In the instant case the provisions of Section 11 (2) (d) and (c) of C.P Act, 1986 is fully applicable. Therefore, this Commission / Forum has jurisdiction to try this case. Hence, these two issues are decided in favour of the complainant.
Issue Nos:- 3 & 4:-
These two issues are taken up together for consideration as they are related to each other.
At the time of hearing of argument of both sides neither party stressed the point as to whether the case is maintainable in its present form and prayer. We have already discussed that the complainant has cause of action for this case and this Commission / Forum has jurisdiction to try the case. Therefore, when the Law permits to try the case then it can be said that the case is maintainable in its present form and prayer. But we shall have to see whether the case has been proved by evidence of the complainant or dis proved by evidence of other sides. Now we go through the evidence on record to solve these questions.
On going through the evidence on record it is found that both the parties admitted either in the complaint or in the W.V as well as evidence of both sides the vehicle in question was purchased from the O.P.No-3 and the cost of Rs.6,35,000/- and the O.P made finance of Rs.4,24,366/- along with an agreement in between the parties on condition to make payment the said financial amount by Rs.13,550/- per installment in every month. But the dispute is otherwise in respect of mode of payment and outstanding dues. The complainant in his evidence stated that he paid Rs.13,550/- per month from 01/10/2015 up to 01/01/2017 and thereafter, on 01/01/2017 he went to the office of the O.P.No-1 for payment outstanding dues and the O.P.No-1 informed him that the outstanding dues was Rs.3,59,512/- and accordingly, the complainant on 20/01/2017 depsoited Rs.3,59,500/- from RTGS being numbers BRC/SG/0001/0115/00011563 and BRC/SG/0001/0115/00006294 dated. 21/01/2017 & 28/01/2017 and outstanding Rs.12/- was paid by him into closure account of respondent No-2 on 20/01/2017. He also stated that on 20/01/2017 he paid full outstanding dues in favour of O.P.Nos- 1 & 2 and the statement was issued by O.P.Nos-1 & 2 closing balance of Rs.12/- in their statement “Closure” and he requested his concerned bank to stop payment of his blank cheques deposited at the time of agreement in respect of outstanding dues to be claimed by the O.P. He further stated that inspite of the said facts the O.P.Nos-1 & 2 did not issue any clearance certificate by closing the said loan account. In support of his claim he submitted the xerox copy of statement of account which support his version. The xerox copy of the cheque also disclosed that he issued the cheque amounting to Rs.300000/- and Rs.59,500/- in favour of the O.P.Nos-1 & 2. The statement of account issued by the O.P.Nos-1 & 2 disclosed that they received those amounts on 21/01/2017 & 28/01/2017 respectively. The Exhibit-A that is statement of account issued by O.P.Nos-1 & 2 also support the said version. But the O.P.W1 stated in their evidence that without approval of higher authority O.P.No-1 did not able to close the loan account as because as per norms outstanding dues calculated by his higher authority, as such office of Magma Fincorp Limited of Malda Office (O.P.No-1) stated the complainant that he paid Rs.3,59,500/- and Rs.12/- as per his own whim but without approval of higher authority and the O.P.No-1 did nothing as because at that time the O.P.No-1 was quite in dark about the outstanding loan amount of the petitioner. At the same time he also stated that subsequently higher authority, that is, O.P.No-2 informed that the complainant have some dues towards the O.P.Nos-1 & 2 and if he wanted to get the NOC he have to pay the said dues failing which interst and other charges will be increased and he filed a document marked Exhibit-B shows one statement of account disclosing various charges and total outstanding dues was RS.1,04,423.00/- on 25/05/2019. But the O.P.Nos-1 & 2 in one part of their W.V did not admit that on 21/01/2017 & 28/01/2017 the complainant has paid Rs.3,59,500/- . But in another part of the W.V they admitted the said fact that the complainant has paid those amounts on those dates. The question arose why he firstly denied the said true fact though their statement of account disclosed that on 21/01/2017 & 28/01/2017 the complainant has paid those amounts. The accounts of dues mentioned in Para-10 of the W.V and the Exhibit-B which have been calculated up to 25/05/2019 showing the total dues of Rs.1,04,423.00/- yet the said account does not disclose what amount has been paid by the complainant including the amount of installment @ Rs.13,550/- per month and which total amount has been paid by him and from what period to which period the said account of statement has been calculated along with interest. Even more, the said Exhibit-B does not disclose after payment of Rs.3,59,512/- on 21/01/2017 and 28/01/2017 what amount was due after 28/01/2017. One fact has been adduced by the O.P.W1 that the complainant has paid those amounts without approval of his higher authority whimsically and he was in quite dark in the matter but if it be the fact then how this company accepted the said amount without giving any written notice denying that the said amount will not be accepted without approval of the higher authority. Now the age of advanced technology the picture of accounts is clear if the account is open through the computerized desktop. Even the O.P.No-1 being the Branch Manager what step had taken in respect of closer of loan accounts after 28/01/2017 when it was came to his notice and no reasonable explanation is forthcoming on his part by way of evidence. Therefore, this statement of the O.P.W cannot be accepted at all. Therefore, it can be said that the O.Ps has failed to prove their case and the complainant has been able to prove his case. It is also clear that the O.P.Nos-1 and 2 committed deficiency in service under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. As such, these issues are decided in favour of the complainant.
From the materials on record it appears that since 28/01/2017 the O.Ps did not take any step in the matter of closure of the loan account and issuance of clearance certificate which has suffered the complainant from harassment and mental pain and agony and as such the complainant is also entitled to get compensation in this regard. As the complainant specifically did not make any prayer for awarding litigation cost we are of opinion to dis allow the same.
Hence,
It is O R D E R E D
that this case be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.P.Nos-1 & 2 and ex parte against the O.P.No-3, but without any cost. The O.P.Nos-1 & 2 are directed to close the loan account and to issue clearance certificate to the complainant. The O.P.Nos-1 & 2 are also directed to pay the compensation of Rs.25,000/- by account payee cheque to the complainant for mental pain and agony and harassment along with interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of this case i.e on and from 04/12/2018 within 2 months from the date of final order failing which the amount shall carry further interest @6% per annum till realization.
Let a plaint certified copy of this final order be given to the parties on free of cost.
