DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.91/03.07.2008 Decided on : 28.11.2008 Kulwinder Singh S/o Sh.Hardev Singh, Ward No.6, Gali No.8, Mansa. ..... Complainant. VERSUS 1.Magma Shrachi Finance Ltd., SCO No.10, 1st Floor, Sector 26, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Executing Manager. 2.Manpreet Singh Goldi S/o Sh.Ravinder Singh, Counter Staff (Agent), Magma Shrachi Finance Ltd., Branch Sangrur, resident of Ward No.1, Guru Arjan Dev Nagar, Near Tarsem Singh Mechanic, Heero Honda, Teen Koni, Mansa. 3. ..... Opposite Parties. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh.Pirthipal Singh, counsel for the complainant. Sh.Rovin Kumar, Counsel for Ops 1 & 2. Before: Sh.Sarat Chander, Member. Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER: Kulwinder Singh (hereinafter called as the complainant) has filed the present complaint against Magma Shrachi Finance Ltd., Chandigarh as well as Manpreet Singh Goldi, resident of Mansa (hereinafter called as the opposite parties No.1 & 2, respectively) for seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.80,000/-, Rs.5,000/- as litigation costs and for a direction to OP No.1 to issue him Form No.35. Brief facts of this complaint are that the complainant had purchased a Sumo Car bearing No.PB05 N-9136 from its previous owner, namely, Ranjit Singh S/o Sh.Parkash Chand, resident of Pheroke, Contd........2 : 2 : Tehsil Zira, District Ferozepur by paying Rs.2,80,000/-. To meet with the above expenses, the complainant had applied for a loan of Rs.1,70,000/- from OP No.2. On the asking of OP No.1, Sh.Manjeet Singh Kohli, Surveyor/Investigator was appointed to report about the ownership and market value of the car in question. Vide his report dated 15.4.2008, the Surveyor has assessed the cost of the car to the tune of Rs.2,70,000/-. Thereafter, OP No.1 approved the documents relating to the loan and got deposited Rs.600/- from the complainant as requisite fee and sanctioned a loan of Rs.1,70,000/- to him. When the complainant requested OP No.1 to release the loan amount, it was conveyed that the loan would be released to him only when the hire-purchase of the car would be in the name of OP No.1, i.e. after the receipt of RC from the office of DTO, Mansa vide Form No.34. Accordingly the RC was prepared in the name of the complainant by the office of DTO, Mansa and the hire-purchase agreement was also executed in the name of OP No.1. The complainant was also advised to get the car insured. Despite repeated requests of the complainant time and again, the OP No.1 has failed to release the loan amount to him. Due to the non release of the loan amount by the Ops, the complainant had to arrange the amount from other sources for paying it to the previous owner of the car. The complainant also claims to have suffered mental harassment. Hence this complaint. OPs in its written version had taken certain legal objection. It was contended that the Ops were not having any knowledge about the purchase of the car by the complainant. It was admitted that the complainant had applied for loan with OP No.2, but the loan was not sanction on the ground that the complainant was not having a valid driving license, incomplete documents and the intentions of the complainant himself. Neither any fee was got deposited from the complainant nor any loan was sanction in his favour. The complainant had already made the payment to the previous owner of the car. OP No.2 carries out work at Contd........3 : 3 : Sangrur Branch. The OPs were not in any way deficient in service towards the complainant. All other allegations were denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint was accordingly made. Both the parties have led their respective evidence in the shape of affidavits and documents. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and carefully scrutinized the entire evidence placed. The ld.counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that OP No.1 finances the used cars. Form No.34 (Ext.C-1) has been duly sent by the Ops to the DTO under its stamp. Thereafter the Ops refused to disburse the loan amount to the complainant and also failed to issue Form NO.35 to him. To the contrary, the point of jurisdiction has been raised by the ld. Counsel for the Ops. No doubt, the office of the OPs is not situated at Mansa, but cause of action has certainly arose to the complainant at Mansa. The car has been transferred from the name of the previous owner to the name of Kulwinder Singh complainant by the DTO, Mansa (Ext.C-4) at Mansa. This is a sufficient cause for terming the complainant as a consumer and this Forum has got jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint on this score alone. In view of the provisions laid down in Section 11 (2)(c), the cause of action, wholly or in part has thus arose to the complainant making him eligible for filing this complaint before this Forum. The complainant is seeking direction to the Ops to provide Form No.35 to him. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the Ops has stated at the bar that the company is ready to provide Form No.35 to the complainant. The complainant has applied for the loan vide car loan application form Ext.OP2 on 14.4.2008. The Surveyor has submitted the valuation of the vehicle vide its report dated 15.4.2008 (Ext.C-3). Car was got insured on 23.4.2008 vide insurance cover note Ext.C-2. Car was transferred in the name of the complainant vide No.7211 Contd........4 : 4 : dated 21.4.2008 by the DTO, Mansa (RC Ext.C-4) and Agreement of hire purchase in the name of OP No.1 was executed on 21.4.2008 by the DTO, Mansa. When all the formalities and documents were duly completed in the month of April, 2008 itself by the complainant, the Ops have failed to disclose the reasons for not releasing the loan amount as well as Form No.35 to the complainant at that time. It was only on the filing of the present complaint by the complainant on 3.7.2008 before the Forum, that the Ops have come forward with the reply that the loan was never sanctioned to the complainant and has now shown their willingness to provide Form No.35 to the complainant. The Ops are thus negligent in rendering service to the complainant by not informing him about the fate of his loan application if his loan case was not sanctioned by them. The complainant was compelled to knock at the doors of this Forum for no fault on his part. In view of the aforesaid facts, the complaint is allowed with a direction to the opposite parties to provide Form No.35 to the complainant. The Ops are also burdened with Rs.1000/- as compensation and costs. Compliance of the order be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order which shall be supplied to the parties free of charges under the rules and file be arranged, indexed and consigned to record. Pronounced: 28.11.2008 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, Member. Member.
