Haryana

Jind

CC/15/80

Raj Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Magma Fincorp - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Ramesh Kumar

16 Aug 2016

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND.
                            Complaint No. 73 of 2015
                            Date of institution:-1.6.2015
                            Date of decision:-16.8.2016
Raj Singh son of Sh. Roop Ram resident of village Budha Khera Lathar block 358 District Jind. 

                                       ...Complainant.
Versus
Magma Fincorp Limited Regional Office SCO 13 Sector-3, HSIDC Industrial area, Karnal through its Authorized signatory. 
Ashok Kumar Sharma Agent Magma Fincorp Limited, HUDA Market, in front of DRDA, Jind.  
                                          …Opposite parties.
Complaint under section 12 of
                Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before: Sh. Dina Nath Arora, President.    
            Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member.
            Sh. Mahinder Kumar Khurana, Member.
            
Present:-    Sh. Ramesh Kumar Adv. for complainant. 
        Sh. Bhisham Vashisth, Adv.for opposite party No.1. 
            Opposite party No.2 already ex-parte. 
            
Order:-
        In nutshell, the facts of the complaint are that the complainant  had purchased Hyundai Santro GLS Car for a sum of Rs.3,70,000/- out of which Rs.2,70,000/- were got financed from 
            Raj Singh Vs. Magma Fincorp Ltd. etc.
                    ..2…
opposite party No.1 through opposite party No.2 on 17.7.2009 and all the formalities were completed by opposite party No.2 at Jind, loan agreement was also executed at Jind and amount of loan was disbursed at Jind.  The above said loan amount was to be repaid in 48 monthly installments of Rs.7684/- each commencing from 20.6.2009. As per terms and conditions of the loan agreement he had repaid 46 monthly installments in time and only last two installments were remained to be paid  and could not deposit the same as per schedule in time.  Due to non-payment of two installments, the opposite party had served a legal notice dated 2.7.2013 for payment of Rs.23,588/- to him. In response, he had paid Rs.24,295/- to opposite party No.1 through cheque No.417481 dated 12.8.2013 and nothing remains due towards him. Thereafter, the complainant requested many times to the opposite parties to issue “No Dues Certificate” in his favour but till today the opposite parties  have not issued the same. The complainant served a legal notice dated 24.4.2015 through his counsel upon the opposite parties but all in vain.  Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is alleged. It is prayed that the complaint be accepted and opposite parties be directed to issue “No Dues Certificate”, a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony  as well as to pay a sum of Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. 
2.    Pursuant to notice, the opposite party  No.1 appeared and filed the written reply agitating that the complaint is false and frivolous and this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present 
            Raj Singh Vs. Magma Fincorp Ltd. etc.
                    ..3…
complaint. On merits, it is contended that  as per terms and conditions of the agreement, the complainant was bound to deposit the installments of loan in time and in case of any delay in depositing the installments the delayed period charges will be borne by the complainant/hirer. The complainant had raised the loan from the opposite party but the complainant has not yet paid all the entire finance amount and still a sum of Rs.40,437/- till date is due and outstanding against the complainant which the complainant has failed to pay as per terms and conditions of the agreement.  No Dues Certificate  will be issued to the complainant after clearing his loan account i.e. after making the upto date payment outstanding against him.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the  answering opposite party. Dismissal of complaint with cost  is prayed for.  
3.    Opposite party No.2 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order of this Forum dated 10.12.2015.
4.    In evidence, the complainant has  produced his own affidavit Annexure C-1, letter dated 2.7.2013 Annexure C-2, copy of repayment schedule Annexure C-3, copy of legal notice dated 24.4.2015 Annexure C-4, copy of pass-book Annexure C-5 and copy of  Aadhar card Annexure C-6 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the opposite party No.1 has produced the affidavit of Sh. Vikas Kala Annexure OP-1, copy of normal termination report Annexure OP-2 and copy of hire purchase finance agreement Annexure OP-3 and closed the evidence. 
            Raj Singh Vs. Magma Fincorp Ltd. etc.
                    ..4…
5.    We have heard Ld. counsel of both the parties and also perused the record placed on file. The counsel for complainant argued that complainant has got financed an amount of Rs.2,70,000/- from opposite party No.1 through opposite party No.2 on 20.6.2009 in 46 monthly installment of Rs.7684/-. It is argued that the complainant has repaid 46 installment in time and due to some unavoidable circumstances he could not pay the last two installments and thereafter on the notice dated 2.7.2013 of the opposite parties the complainant had paid Rs.24,295/- on 12.8.2013 but till today  the opposite parties have failed to provide the No Due Certificate to the complainant.
6.    On the other hand, counsel for opposite party No.1 argued that  this Forum got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint as there is no branch office of the Company  situated at Jind. Only the Hisar and Calcutta have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. It is further argued that the complainant has not repaid the loan amount in time and Rs.40,437/- are outstanding against the complainant as per loan statement and the complainant is bound to pay the same as per terms and conditions of the agreement. 
7.    After hearing counsel of both the parties and going through the record placed on file the forth most question arises before us whether this Forum got territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint or not? We have gone through the written statement supported by affidavit filed by opposite party No.2 wherein the opposite party No.2 alleged that when this loan was released to the 
            Raj Singh Vs. Magma Fincorp Ltd. etc.
                    ..5…
complainant, he was working as a service provider  on behalf of the company at Jind. The plea taken by opposite party No.1 that this Forum got no jurisdiction is not tenable because the company’s Agent/Service Provider are working for gain at Jind on behalf of company and as per Consumer Protection Act if the company is working for gain through their agent then the Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint and as such this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint. 8.    Second question involved in this case whether the complainant has deposited entire loan amount along with interest and  he is entitle for the NOC or not? The version of the opposite parties are that the complainant has failed to deposit the outstanding loan amount of Rs.40,437/- and as such they have not  issued the NOC to the complainant. From the perusal of the record it is admitted that an amount of Rs.2,70,000/- was financed to the complainant in equally 48 installments and the repayment of the loan amount commence from 20.6.2009 up to May, 2013.  But the complainant could not deposit the last two  installments in time due to some unavoidable circumstances and thereafter the opposite party/company issued an letter dated 2.7.2013 Ex. C-2 wherein the company has directed the complainant to deposit the remaining loan amount along with interest included delay period charges, cheque bounces charges to the tune of Rs.8293/-+ Rs.15,255/-  i.e. amount of two installments totaling to Rs.23,588/- within seven days. In response of the said notice, the complainant has deposited an amount of Rs.24,295/- vide cheque No.417481 dated 
            Raj Singh Vs. Magma Fincorp Ltd. etc.
                    ..6…
12.8.2013 which shows that the complainant has deposited the loan amount along with interest and another charges with the opposite parties. The demand of Rs.40,437/- raised by the opposite parties is totally illegal because when the last 48 installments were to be repaid in May, 2013 and  the company vide their letter dated 2.7.2013 demanded an amount of Rs.23,588/- and in response of that letter the complainant has deposited entire demanded amount and thereafter the demand of Rs.40,437/- is totally illegal. It is unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party No.1 for not issuing the No Dues Certificate to the complainant. 
9.    In view of the above said discussion deficiency in service is established on the part of the opposite party No.1. Hence, the complaint is allowed with cost and opposite party No.1 is directed to issue the No Due Certificate to the complainant within 30 days from the date of orders without any charge. We assessed as Rs.3,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room after due compliance.
Announced on: 16.8.2016
                                              President,
       Member       Member                 District Consumer Disputes                                          Redressal Forum, Jind

 

             Raj Singh Vs. Magma Fincorp Ltd. etc.
                    
                
Present:-    Sh. Ramesh Kumar Adv. for complainant. 
        Sh. Bhisham Vashisth, Adv.for opposite party No.1. 
            Opposite party No.2 already ex-parte. 

                 Arguments heard.  To come up on  16.8.2016 for orders.

                                       President,
            Member            Member                     DCDRF,Jind
                                       10.8.2016

Present:-    Sh. Ramesh Kumar Adv. for complainant. 
        Sh. Bhisham Vashisth, Adv.for opposite party No.1. 
            Opposite party No.2 already ex-parte. 

        Order announced. Vide our separate order of the even date, the complaint is allowed. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 
                                                                                                 President,
            Member            Member                     DCDRF,Jind
                                        16.8.2016