Punjab

Sangrur

CC/603/2014

Balwant Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Magma Fincorp Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Amit Aggarwal

26 May 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

 

                                                Complaint No.    603  

                                                Instituted on:      05.11.2014

                                                Decided on:       26.05.2015

 

 

Balwant Singh son of Lat Ram, resident of VPO Chandau, Tehsil Moonak, District Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.             Magma Fincorp Limited, Registered Office 24, Park Street, Kolkata through its M.D.

2.             Magma Fincorp Limited, Near Magnum Palace, Outside Sunami Gate, Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant    :       Shri Amit Aggarwal, Adv.

For OPs                    :       Shri Mohinder Ahuja, Advocate.

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Balwant Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased one Truck TATA 1109 for earning his livelihood by way of self employment and the same was got financed from the OPs through proposal number PG/0140/V/09/000040 and at the time of financing the vehicle, the OPs got signed various blank documents. It is further averred that at the time of financing the truck, it was told by the OPs to the complainant that on clearing the loan amount, the OPs will issue No Objection Certificate regarding the clearance of finance/loan amount.  It is further stated that the complainant has paid all the instalments.  It is further averred that in the month of April, 2014 the complainant approached the Ops and requested them to disclose his total due amount, so that he could clear the same, as such, the OPs demanded an amount of Rs.1,23,010/- as outstanding dues upto 25.4.2014, which were deposited by the complainant and the OPs issued receipts dated 25.4.2014, but the OPs did not issue the NOC as alleged.  It is further stated that after 2/3 months, the complainant again approached for issuance of the NOC, but nothing happened.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to issue NOC against the clearance of finance/loan amount mentioned above and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by Ops, it is admitted that the complainant got financed the truck in question from the Ops.  It is also admitted that on 25.4.2014 the complainant paid an amount of Rs.1,23,010/- on 25.4.2014, but remaining facts in the complaint are denied.  It is stated further that the complainant stood surety of another loanee, namely, Jagtar Singh R/o H.No.115/1, Village Kulienwali, Tehsil and Distt. Ludhiana in Loan account number PG-0039/1/11/000102 and the said Jagtar Singh has not been paying the instalments regularly and now the amount of Rs.4,80,772.05 is outstanding against him as on 3.2.2015 and as per rules and regulations of the OPs as well as terms and conditions of the loan account, if any person obtained loan from the Op and he is also surety in another loan, which is not cleared by him, then the Ops will not issue NOC.  As such, any deficiency in service on the part of the OP has been denied. Apart from that, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable and that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of RC, Ex.C-3 copy of receipt dated 25.4.2014 and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OP1&2/1 copy of purchase agreement, Ex.OP1&2/2 copy of schedule, Ex.OP1&2/3 to Ex.OP1&2/4 copies of accounts statement and Ex.OP1&2/5 affidavit and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

5.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant availed the services of the OPs by getting his truck financed under proposal number PG/0140/V/09/000040.  It is also not in dispute that the complainant has already cleared the loan on 25.4.2014 by depositing the whole remaining amount of Rs.1,23,010/-. 

 

6.             In this case, the grievance of the complainant is that the Ops did not issue him NOC of the truck despite his clearance of the whole of the loan amount of the vehicle in question and has alleged deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  On the other hand, the stand of the Ops is that the complainant stood guarantor in another loan case of one Jagtar Singh, R/o H.No.115/1, Village Kulienwali, Tehsil and Distt. Ludhiana under loan account number PG-0039/1/11/000102 and an amount of Rs.4,80,772.05 is outstanding in this loan account, as such, the Ops have not issued the NOC to the complainant.  We have very carefully perused the whole of the case file and find that there is nothing due under the loan account of the complainant and the complainant has cleared all the dues of the loan account in question, as such, we feel that the OPs are not at all legally entitled to keep the NOC of the complainant, as the complainant has already cleared all the dues.  We have also perused the copy of hire purchase finance agreement, Ex.OP1&2/1, wherein the Ops have inserted a condition  regarding release of property under which it is mentioned that the property cannot be released if the borrower is a guarantor in another loan case also.  But, we are unable to accept such a contention of the Ops.  Moreover, the agreement of the complainant was executed on 06.11.2010 and the agreement of Shri Jagtar Singh was executed on 10.10.2012, as such, we further feel that the OPs cannot withheld the NOC of the complainant. Since there is no dues against the complainant belonging to the OPs regarding the loan account of the complainant, we feel that the Ops cannot withheld the NOC of the complainant regarding the vehicle in question.  To support such a contention, the learned counsel for the complainant has cited Jaskarna Agarwalla versus Branch Manager, Andhra Bank and others 2015(2) CLT 207 (Orissa State Consumer Commission), wherein the complainant availed cash credit limit from the bank by depositing the title deed as security and in another loan account he was the guarantor. There was default in payment of instalments.  The Ops filed two civil suits against the complainant.  One civil suit was compromised by one time settlement with commitment by the OPs for return of title deed of the complainant and the suit was withdrawn, but title deed of the complainant was not returned on the ground that another civil suit in which the complainant is guarantor is still pending.  It has been held that the plea of the bank is deficiency in service in as much as at the time of making the commitment the Bank was well aware of the pendency of another civil suit and the Hon’ble State Commission directed the bank to return the title deed of the complainant.  We feel that the above said case law is fully applicable to the circumstances of the present case.

 

7.             In view of our above discussion, we find it to be a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. As such, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to issue to the complainant NOC against the vehicle in question. Ops are further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- on account of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and litigation expenses.

 

8.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                May 26, 2015.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member