ORDER

PER NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

 The complainant financed his vehicle no. DL 5CE 2397 make Santro Car GLS with the OP to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000/- on 10/02/2010.  The aforesaid loan was payable in 36 monthly instalments which expired on 10-01-2013. 

     It is alleged by the complainant that the monthly instalment of the aforesaid vehicle was Rs. 8,645/- and till 23-11-2011, he made a payment of Rs. 1,35,000/- to the OP.  It is alleged by the complainant that as his both kidneys had failed, he was admitted in a hospital, and as such he could not make the payment of further instalments.  It is further alleged by the complainant that on 23-11-2011, in his absence, the officials of the OP took over the vehicle in question from his house  forcibly.  The complainant approached for release of his said vehicle in Ghaziabad branch of the OP,  and requested them to release the vehicle.  The OP turned down the request of the complainant and asked him to bring the entire balance payment of loan amount. Accordingly,  the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 2,02,500/-with OP on 31-12-2011 as the entire balance amount of the vehicle loan and got his vehicle released.

     It is further alleged by the complainant  that on the loan of Rs. 2,50,000/- the interest came out to the tune of Rs. 61,220/- in 36 months which were repayable upto 10-1-2013.  It is alleged that OP has illegally and unlawfully taken from him a sum of Rs. 3,38,070/- .  It is alleged by the complainant that OP had taken an excess amount of Rs 26,850/- from him, besides the fact that the complainant had made the payment of entire loan amount 14 months before its expiry period.  The complainant, therefore, approached this forum for the redressal of his grievances.

     The OP has contested the complaint and has filed a written statement.  It has denied any deficiency in service on its part and has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 

     We have heard arguments advanced at the bar and have perused the record.

     The learned counsel for the OP has contended that the complainant has committed default in repayment of the loan bearing no. 1120234. He has also placed on record the copy of the order dated 1-11-2011 passed by the Hon’ble Court of Sh. OP Gupta , District Judge West Delhi vide which the court had appointed a receiver to take possession of the alleged vehicle.  It is further contended by the counsel for the OP that in compliance   of the order dated 1-11-2011 , the above said vehicle had been taken over by the representative of the OP and the same was released by the OP to the complainant after settling the  loan amount.

     The counsel for the OP has stated that no excess amount  has been charged  from the complainant.  The complainant had settled the loan account with the OP as per the statement of the account which is annexed as Ex . OPW1/ B.  He has contended that there is no cause of action  for filing the present complaint against the OP.

     We have considered the contention  of the learned counsel for the OP with which we tend to agree.  The complainant had settled his loan account with the OP on 31.12.2011 whereafter he had got the vehicle released to him.  He had not protested at the said time or immediately thereafter that an amount of Rs. 26,880/- had been charged in excess from him.  He has not challenged the statement of account is  placed on record by the OP and has not shown as to how the statement of account incorrect and is not in accordance with terms and conditions of the loan agreement. The complainant had not even served a legal notice on the OP and had instead approached this forum after a period of  9 months with the present complaint.  The complainant had ceased to be a consumer qua OP after the settlement of the loan account and could not have filed the present complaint.

     A similar  view was taken  by the National Commission in cases titled as   Haryana State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd V/s Iffco Tokyo Gen. Insurance Co. Ltd 2013 STPL (CL) 1519 (NC), wherein the Hon’ble National Commission  had approved the following findings of the state commission :

We find force in the contention raised on behalf of the appellant.  The content of the above said letter make it clear that the demand draft bearing no. 143178 dt. 5/2/2009 for Rs. 4,72,263/- who sent buy the OP to the complainant toward full and final settlement of the complainant claim.  Admittedly, the complainant got encashed the above said Demand Draft.  Meaning thereby, the complainant had received the amount in full and final settlement and therefore no further cause of action arose in favour of the complainant to re-open its claim.  If the complainant was not agreed with the payment of Rs.4,72,263/- then the demand draft could have been returned. Thus, it is not the case where the claim of the complainant can be re-opened for any further payment.

The Hon’ble National Commission  had further observed :

The petition cannot be allowed to accept the offer of the respondent in part and reject the condition subject to which the offer was made. 

We, therefore, find no merits in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed.

A copy of this order be made available to both the parties free of cost as per law.

File be consigned to R/R.

Announced in open sitting of the Forum on_____________