Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/585/2011

Jaspreet Singh S/o.Mohan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mahindra & Mahindra finance Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Pardeep Singh

18 Jul 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                          Complaint No. 585 of 2011.

                                                                                          Date of institution: 02.06.2011

                                                                                          Date of decision: 18.07.2016.

Jaspreet Singh (26) son of Shri Mohan Singh resident of village Balachaur, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       …Complainant.

                                                     Versus

1. Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Services Limited Ambala through its Branch Manager.
2. Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Service Limited, Commercial Belt, HUDA, Sector-17, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar through its Branch Manager.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                …Respondents.

 

Before:             SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

 

Present:   None for complainant.  

                Sh. P.K.Lehna, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.1.

                Respondent No.2 already ex-parte.              

             

ORDER

 

1.                     The present complaint has been filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, praying therein that the respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed not to recover the illegal amount as per alleged exaggerated, wrong and illegal statement of account dated 02.05.2011 by using coercive method i.e. by filing complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and by misusing the signed cheque in possession of the OPs taken by them as security of loan amount and further to charge interest at the rate of 9% per annum and issue No Objection Certificate and further to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.  

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant purchased a tractor from M/s Jaswant Singh and sons, Pipli Road, Kurukshetra for a sum of Rs. 4,92,000/-. Out of this alleged amount, an amount of Rs. 3,70,000/- was got financed from the OPs which was repayable in equal installments of Rs. 11805/- in 48 installments. The complainant had deposited three installments of Rs. 11805/- after that on 30.06.2008 the tractor in question was stolen for which an FIR bearing No. 101 dated 01.07.2008 under section 379 IPC was lodged in Police Station Chhachhrauli. A claim was lodged with the Insurance Company. However, insurance company i.e. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company repudiate the claim of the complainant, upon which complainant filed a complaint bearing No. 495/2009 and the same was accepted by this Forum on 11.04.2011 and Ops Insurance Company was directed to release the claim amount of Rs. 4,67,400/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum as detailed in the judgment. After that complainant visited the OPs for settlement of the account so that the complainant may be able to get No Objection Certificate but the OPs after preparing the statement of account have been demanding Rs. 7,48,362/- which is totally wrong and illegal. The complainant requested the OPs not to receive the highly exaggerated interest and not to claim the illegal and wrong amount of principal and interest from the complainant but they refused to do so. Hence this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice OP No.1 appeared and filed its written statement whereas OP No2 failed to appear despite service, hence OP No.2 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 08.07.2011. OP No.1 filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable, no locus standi to file the present complaint; the complainant has concealed the true facts. The true facts are that complainant availed a loan facility of Rs. 3,70,000/- on 29.03.2008 for purchase of said tractor and the same was repayable in 48 monthly installments of Rs. 11850/- but the complainant paid only 3 installments to the OPs and an amount of Rs. 8,40,157/- including AFC is still outstanding against the complainant. The OPs are ready to issue No Objection Certificate after getting his due amount, the OPs Company is demanding the amount as per agreement executed by the complainant with the OPs and has every legal rights to recover the same from the complainant as the complainant has not paid the huge amount. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and the complaint is liable to be dismissed out rightly.

4.                     Complainant failed to adduce any evidence despite so many opportunities being last and with costs, lastly his evidence was closed by court order dated 14.12.2015.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for OP No.1 also failed to adduce any evidence despite last opportunity, hence evidence of OP No.1 is hereby closed by court order.

6.                     We have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file at the time of filing of complaint. It is not disputed that complainant obtained a loan of Rs. 3,70,000/- from the Ops on 29.03.2008 for purchase of one tractor which was returnable in 48 monthly installments of Rs. 11850/- each. It is also not disputed that complainant paid only 3 installments of Rs. 11850/- as he has admitted this fact in para No.3 of his complaint and as such huge amount is pending against him. From the prayer clause of the complainant mentioned in the complaint, it is clearly evident that the present complaint has been filed by the complainant just to save the skin from the criminal proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act proceeded by the OPs against the complainant, otherwise complainant has totally failed despite so many opportunities to adduce any evidence in support of his version taken in the complaint that he had repaid entire loan amount to the OPs and there was any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.   Hence, this Forum has no option except to dismiss the present complaint being devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court. 18.07.2016.

                                                                                                (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                                                PRESIDENT,

 

 

                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                    MEMBER