Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Room No. 208 2nd Floor, District Administrative Complex, Tarn Taran
Consumer Complaint No : 15 of 2017
Date of Institution : 22.03.2017
Date of Decision : 03.09.2019
Charanjit aged 59 years son of Ram Lal H. No. 492 village Fatehabad Tehsil Khadoor Sahib District Tarn Taran.
...Complainant
Versus
- Magma Fincop Limited through authorized signatory, opposite Tara Chand Da Dhaba, Gulabi Bagh, G.T. Road Moga Tehsil and District Moga.
- Dara Singh son of Harbhajan Singh resident of Muradpura Tehsil and District Tarn Taran.
…Opposite Parties.
Complaint Under Section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Quorum: Sh. Charanjit Singh, President
Smt. Jaswinder Kaur, Member
For Complainant Sh. K.K. Dwivedi Advocate
For Opposite Party No. 1 Sh. Surinder Pal Singh Advocate
For Opposite Party No. 2 Exparte
ORDERS:
Charanjit Singh, President;
1 The complainant Charanjit has filed the present complaint under Section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act (herein after called as 'the Act') against Magma Fincop Limited through authorized signatory, opposite Tara Chand Da Dhaba Gulabi Bagh, G.T. Road Moga Tehsil and District Moga and another (Opposite Parties) on the allegations of deficiency in service and negligence in service on the part of opposite parties with prayer to pay Rs. 12,00,000/- as compensation for harassment for nonfulfillment of its duty as conferred by law and also towards the mental harassment.
2 The case of the complainant in brief is that he was in need of financial assistance for the purpose of Truck, as such, he made contact with the opposite party No.2 namely Dara Singh. For this purpose, there are two agreements bearing agreement No. Ho/G/0213/10/000001 and agreement No. Ho/G/0213/10/000003. For agreement No. Ho/G/0213/10/000001 and installment of Rs. 16,850/- was settled between the parties and for agreement No. Ho/G/0213/10/000003 monthly installment of Rs. 13,400/- was settled. The complainant had fulfilled the terms and condition so settled between the parties. As per agreement No. Ho/G/0213/10/000001 a truck bearing No. RJ-20G-4478 and as per agreement No. HO/G/0213/12/000003 a truck bearing No.HR-58A-8535 were purchased. The installment of first agreement was started on 11.10.2011 and qua the second agreement it started on 28.11.2013. The complainant as per the agreement with opposite party No.1 had made the payments of installments of both the agreements as per the settlement between the parties. The last installment of agreement bearing No. Ho/G/0213/10/000001 was made on 3.7.2014 to opposite party No.1 and the last installment with respect of agreement No. Ho/G/0213/10/000003 was made on 22.11.2016. The opposite party No.1 was under obligation to issue ( No Objection Certificate) in respect of both the proposals immediately after the receipt of last installments, but in the present case, the opposite party No. 1 has miserably failed to do so well within time. The complainant could have sold the Truck, if needed or have plied the same on the road for the purpose of transportation. In respect of first agreement No. Ho/G/0213/10/000001 delay has been caused by opposite party No.1 in issuance of ‘No Objection Certificate’ and in respect of agreement bearing No. Ho/G/0213/10/000003 the opposite party No. 1 has not yet issued ‘No Objection Certificate’ this act of the opposite party No. 1 has forced the complainant to put the trucks away from the road and the complainant could not ply those trucks on the road for lack of “No Objection Certificate”. Had the trucks been running on the roads that could have fetched financial income to the complainant to the tune or Rs.1,00,000/- per months. The complainant has suffered financial loss alongwith the mental harassment on part of the opposite party No.1. The total losses i.e. all the losses in the monetary terms, if calculated comes to Rs.12,00,000/- for which the respondent No.1 is liable to pay alongwith the litigation expenses of the present complaint. The complainant requested the opposite parties many a time to admit his claim, but the opposite parties flatly refused to accept the genuine request of the complainant. Feeling dissatisfied by the act and conduct of the opposite parties, the complainant perforce has filed this complaint against the opposite parties.
3 After formal admission of the complaint, notice was issued to Opposite Parties and Opposite Party No. 1 appeared through counsel filed the written version taking preliminary objections that the complainant is not the consumer of the opposite party No. 1. Hence, the present complaint filed by the complainant is beyond the purview of the CPA 1996. Hence the present complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost. The complainant is a transporter and is indulged in the commercial activities with the vehicle in question. The complainant got financed the vehicle in question from the opposite party No. 1 for generating profit with the help of the financed amount. It is submitted that the complainant himself has admitted in the complaint that he has got financed two trucks from the opposite party No.1 which are used for transportation purposes for generating profit with the help of the financed amount. Hence, the present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum. This Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint. As per the loan agreement arrived at by the complainant with the opposite party No. 1, this Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain any dispute arising out of the loan agreement. Further, no cause of action has ever arisen in the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Neither the loan agreement has been arrived at Tarn Taran nor the opposite party has branch office at Tarn Taran nor the installments were paid at Tarn Taran. Hence, this Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint. Present complaint is not maintainable against the opposite party No. 1 as there is no deficiency on the part of opposite party No. 1. The complainant himself has admitted in his complaint that he has received ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the opposite party in respect of one loan agreement. The complainant has never applied the opposite party for getting the NOC. The opposite party has never refused to issue the NOC to the complainant after the closure of the account. Even the opposite party No. 1 has tendered the NOC to the complainant during the pendency of the present complaint but the complainant did not receive the same without any cogent reason. The complainant is using this Forum to satisfy his personal ego which is not permitted under the law. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this very short ground with exemplary cost. The present complainant has no prima facie case against the opposite party. The opposite party possesses goodwill and has an established market and has assumed a good reputation in respect of its business. Allegations mentioned in the complaint against the opposite party are vague and general in nature and that no specific averment, giving rise to file the present complaint, is made against the opposite party. Hence the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this very ground with exemplary cost. The complainant has miserably failed to show any damage on account of the opposite party’s alleged actions and also failed to establish any case for having suffered any loss due to the act of the opposite party. However, irrespective of the fact that the opposite party No. 1 can’t be held liable for any action that is outside the ambit and control of the opposite party. The complainant has no locus standi to initiate the present proceedings against the opposite party No.1. Hence, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this very ground with exemplary cost. The complainant has filed the instant complaint by concealing and misrepresenting the true and actual facts of the present case and has wrongly attempted to enrich himself due to his own default. Actually, the complainant has got financed two trucks from the opposite party No. 1 vide agreement No. Ho/G/0213/10/000001 for Proposal No. Ho/G/0213/10/000003 dated 11-11-2013. Besides these two admitted agreements, complainant also stood guarantor in one Hire Purchase Finance agreement NO. Ho/G/0213/10/0000036 for proposal No.PG/0070/R/10/000014 dated 21.06.2011 wherein one Ranjit Singh R/o H.No.52, Village Tatariewala, District Moga and present complainant have obtained loan for a sum of Rs. 6,12,550/- repayable with interest and other charges thereupon amounting to Rs.8,12,000/-. Even in the said Hire Purchase Finance agreement No. Ho/G/0213/10/0000036 for proposal No. PG./0070/R/10/000014 dated 21-06-2011, requisite NOC has been issued on 24-06-2015, hence, the opposite party has never refused to issue the NOC to the present complainant. The opposite party No. 1 states that from all above, it is apparent that the allegations leveled by complainant against the opposite party No. 1 are patently false and tricky, besides being vague, evasive, cryptic and lacking in material particulars, clearly by way of an afterthought and as such, liable to be ignored/rejected outright, and liable to be dismissed forthwith. The present complainant has filed the present complaint against the replying opposite party with ulterior motives and designs, interalia to harass and pressurize the answering opposite party to yield to the unlawful demands of the complainant. On merits, the opposite party No. 1 has reiterated the stand as taken in the preliminary objection of the written version and has denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4 Notice issued to the opposite party No. 2, but none appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 2, therefore, the opposite party No. 2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 22.5.2017 of this Forum
5 In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1, affidavit of Pritopal Sharma Ex. C-2 alongwith documents Ex. C-3 to Ex. C-5 and closed the evidence. Ld. counsel for the opposite party No. 1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sukhveer Singh Ex. OP1/1 alongwith documents Ex. OP1/2 to Ex. OP1/9 and closed the evidence.
6 We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the complainant and opposite party No. 1 and have gone through the documents placed on the file by the parties.
7 Ld. counsel for the complainant contended that he was in need of financial assistance of the purpose of Truck, as such, he made contact with the opposite party No.2 namely Dara Singh. For this purpose, there are two agreements bearing agreement No. Ho/G/0213/10/000001 and agreement No. Ho/G/0213/10/000003. For agreement No. Ho/G/0213/10/000001 and installment of Rs. 16,850/- was settled between the parties and for agreement No. Ho/G/0213/10/000003 monthly installment of Rs. 13,400/- was settled. The complainant had fulfilled the terms and condition so settled between the parties. As per agreement No. Ho/G/0213/10/000001 a truck bearing No. RJ-20G-4478 and as per agreement No. HO/G/0213/12/000003 a truck bearing No.HR-58A-8535 were purchased. The installment of first agreement was started on 11.10.2011 and qua the second agreement, it started on 28.11.2013. As per the agreement the complainant had made the payments of installments of both the agreements as per the settlement between the parties. he further contended that the last installment of agreement bearing No. Ho/G/0213/10/000001 was made on 3.7.2014 to opposite party No.1 and the last installment with respect of agreement No. Ho/G/0213/10/000003 was made on 22.11.2016. The opposite party No.1 was under obligation to issue ( No Objection Certificate) in respect of both the proposals immediately after the receipt of last installments, but in the present case, the opposite party No. 1 has miserably failed to do so the same well within time. The complainant could have sold the Truck, if needed or have plied the same on the road for the purpose of transportation. In respect of first agreement No. Ho/G/0213/10/000001 delay has been caused by opposite party No.1 in issuance of ‘No Objection Certificate’ and in respect of agreement bearing No. Ho/G/0213/10/000003 the opposite party No. 1 has not yet issued ‘No Objection Certificate’ this act of the opposite party No. 1 has forced the complainant to put the trucks away from the road and the complainant could not ply those trucks on the road for lack of “No Objection Certificate”. He further contended that had the trucks been running on the roads that could have fetched financial income to the complainant to the tune or Rs.1,00,000/- per months. The complainant has suffered financial loss alongwith the mental harassment on part of the opposite party No.1. The total losses i.e. all the losses in the monetary terms, if calculated comes to Rs.12,00,000/- for which the respondent No.1 is liable to pay alongwith the litigation expenses of the present complaint and Ld. counsel for the complainant prayed that the present complaint may be allowed.
8 Ld. counsel for the opposite party No. 1 has contended that the complainant is not the consumer of the opposite party No. 1. The present complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost. The complainant is a transporter and is indulged in the commercial activities with the vehicle in question. The complainant got financed the vehicle in question from the opposite party No. 1 for generating profit with the help of the financed amount. He further contended that the complainant himself has admitted in the complaint that he has got financed two trucks from the opposite party No.1 which are used for transportation purposes for generating profit with the help of the financed amount. He further contended that this Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint. As per the loan agreement arrived at by the complainant with the opposite party No. 1, this Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain any dispute arising out of the loan agreement. Further, no cause of action has ever arisen in the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Neither the loan agreement has been arrived at Tarn Taran nor the opposite party has branch office at Tarn Taran nor the installments were paid at Tarn Taran. Hence, this Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint. He further contended that present complaint is not maintainable against the opposite party No. 1 as there is no deficiency on the part of opposite party No. 1. The complainant himself has admitted in his complaint that he has received ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the opposite party in respect of one loan agreement. The complainant has never applied the opposite party for getting the NOC. The opposite party has never refused to issue the NOC to the complainant after the closure of the account. Even the opposite party No. 1 has tendered the NOC to the complainant during the pendency of the present complaint but the complainant did not receive the same without any cogent reason. He further contended that the complainant is using this Forum to satisfy his personal ego which is not permitted under the law. He further contended that the allegations mentioned in the complaint against the opposite party are vague and general in nature and that no specific averment, giving rise to file the present complaint, is made against the opposite party. He further contended that the complainant has miserably failed to show any damage on account of the opposite party’s alleged actions and also failed to establish any case for having suffered any loss due to the act of the opposite party.. The complainant has filed the instant complaint by concealing and misrepresenting the true and actual facts of the present case and has wrongly attempted to enrich himself due to his own default. Actually, the complainant has got financed two trucks from the opposite party No. 1 vide agreement No. Ho/G/0213/10/000001 for Proposal No. Ho/G/0213/10/000003 dated 11-11-2013. He further contended that besides these two admitted agreements, complainant also stood guarantor in one Hire Purchase Finance agreement No. Ho/G/0213/10/0000036 for proposal No.PG/0070/R/10/000014 dated 21.6.2011. One Ranjit Singh R/o H.No.52, Village Tatariewala, District Moga and present complainant have obtained loan for a sum of Rs. 6,12,550/- repayable with interest and other charges thereupon amounting to Rs.8,12,000/-. Even in the said Hire Purchase Finance agreement No. Ho/G/0213/10/0000036 for proposal No. PG./0070/R/10/000014 dated 21-06-2011, requite NOC has been issued on 24.6.2015, hence, the opposite party has never refused to issue the NOC to the present complainant. Ld. counsel for the opposite party No. 1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
9 It is admitted case of the parties that the complainant has purchased trucks after availing loan from the opposite party No. 1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant that the opposite party No. 1 has not issued ‘No Due Certificate’ in respect of agreement bearing No. Ho/G/0213/10/000003 to the complainant. However the complainant has stated that the opposite party No. 1 has issued ‘No Objection Certificate’ to the complainant regarding the other Hire purchase finance agreement No. Ho/G/0213/10/000001 to the complainant. The opposite party No. 1 in its written version has not proved on record that any amount is due against the complainant, infact, at in the written version, the opposite party No. 1 has pleaded that opposite party No. 1 has tendered the NOC to the complainant during the pendency of the present complaint but the complainant did not receive the same without any cogent reason. It is proves that the opposite party No. 1 after admitting their fault have tendered the No objection certificate qua hire purchase agreement No. Ho/G/0213/10/000003. It shows that the opposite party No. 1 ready to issue the no objection certificate to the complainant when he filed the present complaint. However, in the present complaint the complainant has stated that he has made the last installment on 22.11.2016 in hire purchase agreement No. Ho/G/0213/10/000003. But the opposite party No. 1 has not issued No Objection Certificate to the opposite party No. 1. But during the pendency of the present complaint, the opposite party No. 1 has tendered the ‘No Objection Certificate’ to the complainant and the opposite party No. 1 has failed to explain why the opposite party No. 1 has not handed over the same to the complainant at the time of demand. As such, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No. 1. However, the complainant has not put any strict proof of loss which he has incurred due to non-issuance of NOC by the opposite party. Hence, this plea is not sustainable. The plea taken by the opposite party that complainant has got financed two trucks and are used for transportation purposes for generating profit with the help of financed amount is not sustained in the present complaint as merely plying one or two trucks no one becomes big transporter, moreover, complainant has pleaded in the complaint that he has got financed two trucks to earn his livelihood.
10 In view of above discussion, the present complaint is partly allowed against opposite party No. 1 and opposite party No. 1 is directed to issue No Objection Certificate to the complainant in respect of agreement bearing No. Ho/G/0213/10/000003. The complainant has been harassed by the opposite party No. 1, therefore, the complainant is also entitled to Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. Twenty thousand only) as compensation on account of harassment and Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand only) as litigation expenses from the Opposite Party No.1. Opposite Party No. 1 is directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the complainant is entitled to interest @ 9% per annum, on the awarded amount, from the date of complaint till its realisation. Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the Open Forum
03.09.2019
(Charanjit Singh)
President
(Jaswinder Kaur)
Member
