BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 703 of
2019 Date of Institution
: 10.12.2019
Date of Decision : 10.01.2023
Ved Parkash Sharma (aged about 60 years) son of Sh. Prabhu Dayal Sharma, resident of 71, Ward No.1, Chattergarh Patti, Sirsa, District Sirsa. ……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Service Limited, Opposite 1st Floor, Om Building, Lal Batti Chowk, Dabwali Road, Sirsa, District Sirsa through its Divisional Manager.
2. Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Service Limited, 2nd Floor Narnaul, Building is at Mahindergarh Road, Above State Bank of Patiala, Narnaul, Haryana- 123001 through its Manager/ Authorized Person.
3. Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Service Limited, Registered Office: Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Mumbai – 400 001 through its General Manager/ Authorized person.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI PADAM SINGH THAKUR…………….. PRESIDENT SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR…………………….. MEMBER SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA ……………….MEMBER
Present: Sh. Vijay Sharma, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. HS Raghav , Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (after amendment under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019) against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred as OPs).
2. In brief, the case of complainant is that complainant is a driver by profession and he desired to purchase a Maxi Truck make Mahindra for his livelihood. That he agreed to purchase a vehicle Mahindra Bolero Maxi Truck Plus BS4 bearing registration No. HR-66-A-5870 which was owned by one Naveen son of Sh. Ajay Singh, resident of Narnaul and the said vehicle was financed by ops. It is further averred that prior to purchase of said vehicle, complainant alongwith said Naveen visited the office of op no.2 at Narnaul and they requested the op no.2 to transfer the agreement of the remaining loan amount in the name of complainant, but at that time op no.2 instead of transferring the loan account in the name of complainant replied them that there is no need to transfer the said loan account and op no.2 directed the complainant to pay EMIs regularly. It was assured by op no.2 that after clearing the loan, the NOC will be issued to the complainant. That as such on the said suggestion and assurance given by op no.1, the complainant purchased the said vehicle from its owner Naveen vide agreement dated 29.06.2018 and same was also submitted to op no.2. It is further averred that thereafter complainant paid the remaining EMIs to op no.2 regularly and on 14.05.2019 the loan was fully satisfied by the complainant and nothing remained outstanding against him. The outstanding loan amount was paid by him to op no.1 at Sirsa. That after clearing the loan, complainant requested to ops no.1 and 2 to issue No Objection Certificate and other necessary forms and documents and then ops no.1 and 2 told to the complainant that NOC and other necessary forms and documents etc. will be supplied to him within 30 days. That thereafter, complainant so many times approached the ops and requested them to issue NOC etc. but the ops with one pretext or the other lingered on the matter and did not supply such documents to him and now a week back, the ops no.1 and 2 at the behest of op no.3 has flatly refused to admit the claim of complainant on the pretext that there is another vehicle in the name of said Naveen which was financed by the ops and the installments of that vehicle are still outstanding and until the clearance of loan of that vehicle, the NOC and other documents will not be supplied to the complainant, which plea of ops is totally against the natural justice. It is further averred that such act of the ops come under the ambit of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice due to which complainant is suffering from serious harassment, mental tension etc. and as such he is legally entitled to get compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- besides issuance of NOC etc. from ops. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, ops appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections that as per contents of complaint, complainant purchased the vehicle from the registered owner namely Naveen from Narnaul, so this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint, that complaint is not maintainable, that complainant has got no cause of action to file the present complaint against ops and no consumer dispute is made out, that complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands and he has concealed the true and material facts and that complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint by his own act and conduct.
4. On merits, it is submitted that complainant is not the owner of vehicle. As per record of answering ops, Naveen son of Sh. Ajay is the owner of vehicle and he never visited to the answering ops for issuance of NOC and complainant is not the customer of answering ops, hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this score alone. The complainant has no authority to file the present complaint. It is further submitted that registered owner of aforesaid vehicle has never applied for NOC from the answering ops. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
5. Complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, affidavit of Naveen son of Shri Ajay Singh Ex. CW2/A and copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C14.
6. On the other hand, ops did not lead any evidence despite availing several opportunities including last opportunities.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
8. The complainant in order to prove his case has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he has reiterated all the contents of his complaint. He has also furnished affidavit of Sh. Naveen son of Shri Ajay Singh the registered owner of vehicle in question bearing registration NO. HR-66A-5870 as Ex. CW2/A in which he has deposed that deponent sold this vehicle to complainant Ved Parkash for Rs.4,20,000/- and received Rs.1,92,000/- in cash and the purchaser agreed to pay the outstanding amount of Rs.2,28,000/- in installments as per schedule to the company. He has further deposed that possession of the vehicle was given to the purchaser by the deponent and the company had agreed to this proposal. Said Naveen has also corroborated the remaining version of the complainant regarding his visit with complainant to the ops and above said assurance/ advise given by officials of the ops to Ved Parkash to pay the installments as per schedule and after receiving the entire loan amount including interest from purchaser Ved Parkash, they will issue No Dues Certificate in his favour. He has further deposed that purchaser Ved Parkash has paid the entire amount of loan with the ops alongwith upto date interest and nothing is due against him relating to this vehicle but company is not issuing No Dues Certificate in favour of said Ved Parkash complainant. The complainant has also placed on file copy of agreement executed between Naveen owner of vehicle and him. The complainant has also placed on file receipts of the payment made to Mahindra Finance as Ex.C2 to Ex.C7 and statement of account Ex.C8. The perusal of receipt dated 14.05.2019 Ex.C2 reveals that complainant Ved Parkash deposited an amount of Rs.1,11,125/- with the ops and receipts Ex.C3 to Ex.C7 reveals that complainant got deposited regular installments with the ops. Further the statement of account Ex.C8 placed on file by complainant alongwith receipt also reveals that loan amount of Rs.4,29,480/- financed by ops has already been cleared. The complainant has also placed on file application of Naveen given to Branch Manager, Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Company, Narnaul as Ex.C14 in which said Naveen has requested to issue NOC in favour of complainant Ved Parkash Sharma and he has no objection in this regard. So, it is proved on record that complainant got deposited the loan installments with the ops and has cleared the loan amount on behalf of owner Naveen of the said vehicle in order to obtain NOC and other required documents from ops for transfer of the vehicle in his name. The ops have not led any evidence to prove the fact that still any amount is outstanding against complainant or Naveen owner of the vehicle or that complainant did not pay installments to them. So, the plea of ops that complainant is not their customer has no substance because they have already issued receipts of the installments in favour of Ved Parkash complainant and therefore, ops are legally bound to issue No objection certificate/ No dues certificate alongwith relevant documents to the complainant for transfer of the vehicle in his name.
9. In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to issue No Objection Certificate/ No Dues Certificate alongwith necessary forms and documents to the complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which complainant will be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 71/72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the ops. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced:. Member Member President,
Dated: 10.01.2023. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
JK
