Haryana

Karnal

621/2009

Baij Nath S/o Beldshwar Jhaa - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mahindera & Mahindra Finance Company., Pearl ford Authorised Dealer Of Appey 3 Wheeler., Punjab And - Opp.Party(s)

Jain Kumar

16 Sep 2014

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL  FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.621 of 2009

                                                          Date of instt. 10.09.2009

                                                          Date of decision: 13.3.2015.

 

Baij Nath son of Shri Baleshwar Jhaa resident of House no.128, Ward No.10, Karan Vihar, Gali No.18, Karnal.

                                                                  ……..Complainant.

 

                   Vs.

 

1.The Manager, Mahindera and Mahindera Finance Company, shop No.23-24, Mughal Canal, Karnal.

2.The Manager, Pearl Ford authorized dealer of Appey 3 wheeler, near Radha  Swami Sat Sang Bhawan, GT Road, Karnal.

3.Punjab and Sindh Bank Branch, SBS Modern School Railway Road, Karnal.(given up).

                                                    …..Opposite Parties.

 

                                      Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer

                                      Protection Act.

 

Before        Sh.Subhash Goyal……..President.

                   Smt.Shashi Sharma……Member.

 

Present:-    Sh.Jain Kumar  Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Vineet Rathore Advocate for the OP no.1.

Sh.Dharambir Rana Advocate for the OP no.2.

OP No.3 given up.

ORDER

 

                        The complainant has filed the present complaint against the Ops u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act on the allegations that he purchased one Appey three Wheeler bearing registration no. HR-45-2157 from the OP  no.2 for a sum of Rs.1,32,000/-  and got the same financed from OP no.1 for a sum of Rs.98000/- and paid Rs.34,000/- in cash. After 4-5 days, the complainant also paid Rs.2500/- in cash. The vehicle was handed over to the complainant on 21.12.2006 .The OP no.1 also  took several blank cheques from the complainant. The bill showing purchase of the said vehicle was given to the complainant after 7/8 months.  Thereafter in December or January, 2009 agent of the OP no.1 came to the complainant and the complainant gave payment of Rs.20,000/- to the agent  and the agent went  back by saying that the receipt will be given after some time but till  today the receipt has not been given. Now the  OP no.1 is saying that the loan  of Rs.1,07,000/- was sanctioned instead of Rs.98000/- Thus, the complainant has filed the present complaint alleging deficiency in services  and has sprayed that the OPs be directed to  adjust the sum of Rs.20,000/- in his account and the OP no.1,2 and 3 be directed  to give actual statement of account and also to pay the compensation for the harassment caused to the complainant and the litigation expenses. The complainant has also tendered his affidavit in support of the averments made in the complaint.

2.                 On notice the op No.1 appeared and filed written statement raising the preliminary objections that the present complaint was not maintainable and that the complainant was a financial defaulter of the answering OP no.1 and surrendered the vehicle with the answering OP No.1 as he was not in a position to repay the financed amount for which he  was required to pay  36 equated monthly installment  of Rs.3975/-.

                    On merits, it was contended that agreed value was fixed Rs.143100/- and the complainant became financial defaulter and at present a sum of Rs.3925/- is due towards the principle and other charges like late payment penalty, accrued finance charges, legal charges and other penal interest charges are still  pending against the loan amount of the complainant. It was also agreed that agreed agreement value was fixed Rs.143100/- and the EMIs towards the repayment of loan was not paid regularly by the complainant and therefore, as per agreed terms of the agreement the vehicle was re possessed/surrendered and the complainant took back the vehicle after paying the  defaulted amount. Even after filing the present complaint, the complainant admitted his liability to pay the default amount  in installments and now a sum of Rs.3925/- is outstanding towards  the principle and other charges like the late payment , accrued finance charges , legal charges and other penal interest charges are still pending against the loan amount of the complainant. The other allegations have been denied and it was contended that there was no deficiency in services on the part of the answering OP and dismissal; of the complaint has been sought.

                    The OP no.2 appeared and filed its separate written statement raising the preliminary objections that the present complaint was an abuse of the process of law; that the present complaint was bad for mis joinder and non joinder of the parties and that no cause of action has arisen to the comloainant to file the present complaint.

                    On merits, the answering OP no.2 has admitted that the three  wheeler was purchased by the complainant from the answering OP no.2 and immediately its purchase, delivery of the vehicle was made to the complainant. The other allegations made by the complainant have been denied by the answering OP no.2 and it was contended that there was no deficiency in services on the part of the answering OP no.2 and dismissal of the complaint was sought. Sh.Pawan Kumar Gupta, Proprietor of OP No.2 has also tendered his affidavit in support of the contentions made in the written statement.

3.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.

4.                Therefore, after going through the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence on the file and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it emerges that the complainant purchased one Appey three bearing registration no. HR-45-2157 from the OP no.2 for a sum of Rs.1, 32,000/- and got the same financed from OP no.1 for a sum of Rs.98000/- and paid Rs.34,000/- in cash. After 4-5 days, the complainant also paid Rs.2500/- in cash to the OP no.1. The vehicle was handed over to the complainant on 21.12.2006 .The OP no.1 also took several blank cheques from the complainant. The bill showing purchase of the said vehicle was given to the complainant after 7/8 months.  In December or January, 2009 agent of the OP no.1 came to the complainant and the complainant gave payment of Rs.20, 000/- to the agent and the agent went back by saying that the receipt will be given after some time but till  today the receipt has not been given. Now the OP no.1 is saying that the loan of Rs.1, 07,000/- was sanctioned instead of Rs.98000/-. The  complainant in  para no.6 of the complaint, the complainant has also alleged that the Ops have not issued the No dues Certificate to the complainant.

5.                However, as per the contention of the Ops the agreed agreement value was fixed Rs.143100/- and the EMIs towards the repayment of loan was not paid regularly by the complainant and therefore, as per agreed terms of the agreement the vehicle was re-possessed/surrendered and the complainant took back the vehicle after paying the default amount. Even after filing the present complaint the complainant admitted his liability to pay the default amount in installments and now a sum of Rs.3925/- is outstanding towards  the principle and other charges like the late payment , accrued finance charges , legal charges and other penal interest charges are still pending against the loan amount of the complainant.

6.                However, after going through the evidence on the file it appears that the complainant has not paid the installments of the loan amount in time as is evident from the statement of accounts Ex.OP1/B.  The complainant has stated that he has paid the entire loan amount whereas the Ops have contended that still some amount alongwith penal interest etc. remains to be paid by the complainant. Therefore, in the totality of the facts and circumstances no deficiency in services can be attributed to the Ops.

7.                Therefore, as a sequel to our above discussion,  we direct the Ops to issue the relevant documents including the NOC to the complainant subject to  clearance of all the dues outstanding against him, if any. The present complaint is disposed off accordingly. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated: 13.03.2015                                                                           

                                                              (Subhash Goyal)

                                                             President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                   (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

                             Member.

 

 

Present:-    Sh.Jain Kumar  Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Vineet Rathore Advocate for the OP no.1.

Sh.Dharambir Rana Advocate for the OP no.2.

OP No.3 given up.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been disposed off. The parties concerned be communicated of the order acco0ridngly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

 

Announced
dated: 13.03.2015                                                                           

                                                              (Subhash Goyal)

                                                             President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                   (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

                             Member.