Haryana

Karnal

176/13

Sher Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Service Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Narinder Sharma

05 Jul 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                                 Complaint No.176 of 2013

                                                               Date of instt. 08.04.2013

                                                               Date of decision: 05.07.2016

 

Sher singh son of Shri Harnam Singh resident of village Balu, District Karnal.

                  

                                                                             ………….Complainant.       

                                                         Versus

 

Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Service Ltd. Behind Bus Stand above Hero Honda Showroom, 2^nd floor, Karnal.

.                                          

                                                                            ………..Opposite Party.

 

                   Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.          

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……. President.

                   Sh. Anil Sharma……….Member.

                  

 

 Present       Shri Narender Sharma Advocate for complainant.

                   Shri Vineet Rathore Advocate for opposite party.

 

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, on the averments that he purchased Mahindra Xylo E4 from P.P. Automotive Pvt. Ltd. Karnal for total amount of Rs.7,37,000/-. He got the said car financed from the opposite party for an amount of Rs.3,60,000/-. Contract no.1415024 dated 22.10.2010 was executed in that regard. He was to pay the loan in 12 equal installments of Rs.31,850/- each commencing from 22.12.2010. On the asking of opposite party, he handed over post dated cheques bearing numbers 127886 to 127896 to the opposite party. First two installment were paid by him in cash and thereafter the opposite party regularly encashed the said cheques. In first week of December 2011, he approached the opposite party and asked for issuance of clearance certificate and return of the remaining cheques, but the opposite party told that four installments were due. He was also informed that his cheque book was lost and for that reason installments could not be recovered and efforts were being made to search the cheques. On coming to know such facts, he contacted the Branch Manager of the opposite party, who advised him to pay all the four installments  in cash and then clearance certificate would be issued. Therefore, on 23.12.2011 he paid all the remaining installments in cash. He was asked to come after one week for getting clearance certificate, but the matter was postponed on one pretext or the other. Lateron, he was informed that an amount of Rs.11,843/- was outstanding against him as penalty as he defaulted in making payment of the installments. The cheques were lost due to negligence of the opposite party and he was not at fault, therefore, he was not liable to pay the penalty. Raising such illegal demand by the opposite party amounted to deficiency in service, which caused him mental pain, agony and harassment.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite party, who put into appearance and filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complainant is not maintainable; that the complaint is not within limitation and that this forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that complainant failed to repay the financed amount timely as per payment schedule and an amount of Rs.11,843/- was due against him and for that reason “No Objection Certificate” was not issued to him.

3.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex. C2 to C9 have been tendered.

4.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite party affidavit of Pankaj Rana Ex.OP1/A and documents Ex.OP1/B to Ex.OP1/E  have been tendered.

5.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

6.                As per the case of the complainant he had paid the entire loan amount, but despite that clearance certificate was not issued to him by the opposite party. On the other hand, the opposite party has submitted that an amount of Rs.11,843/- was outstanding against the complainant as penalty, because he could not make payment of the installments as per the schedule of agreement and for that reason clearance certificate could not be issued.

7.                During the pendency of the complaint, the opposite party issued the clearance certificate, the copy of which is Ex.OP1/B. Learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that after considering all the facts and circumstances, penalty amount demanded from the complainant was waived off and clearance certificate was issued and thereafter the complaint became infructuous as the cause of action had subsided.

8.                Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that the complainant was mentally as well as physically harassed by the opposite party by not issuing the clearance certificate despite depositing the entire loan amount. He had already issued the post dated cheques for payment of the installments and if the opposite party lost those cheques, the complainant could not be penalized for that, therefore, the complainant is entitled to get compensation for mental pain and sufferings.

9.                There is no dispute between the parties regarding the fact that the complainant had given post dated cheques to the opposite party for recovery of the installments of loan. From the copy of the daily diary report Ex.C3 it is clear that the opposite party lost the cheques and the same could not be traced out. On account of loss of the cheques the installments which became due could not be recovered. Ultimately, the complainant deposited the installments by cash. In such a situation the demand on the part of the opposite party for an amount of Rs.11,843/- as penalty was not legally justified at all.  However, the fact remains that the opposite party raised demand of the penalty amount and refused to issue “No Objection Certificate” due to which the complainant was constrained to file the present complaint for not fault on his part. In this way, it is emphatically clear that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the complainant is certainly entitled to get compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment suffered by him.

10.              As a sequel to the foregoing reason, we accept the present complaint and direct the opposite party to pay Rs.5500/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 5.7.2016

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member