Haryana

Karnal

CC/627/2021

Nirmal Chahal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Services Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Ram Lal Bilam

16 May 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                        Complaint No. 627 of 2021

                                                        Date of instt.11.11.2021

                                                        Date of Decision:16.05.2023

 

 

Nirmal Chahal son of Shri Balbir Singh Chahal, resident of Village Bibipur Jattan, Tehsil Indri, District Karnal.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

 

Mahindra @ Mahindra Finance Services Ltd. Second Floor, 87, 88, Mahila Ashram Complex, Karnal, through its Manager.

 

                                                                      …..Opposite party.

 

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, as amended up-to-date.

 

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary….Member

 

 

 Argued by: Shri Ram Lal Bilam, counsel for the complainant.

Shri Narender Kumar, counsel for the OP.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

 

 

ORDER:  

 

                The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that complainant purchased a car bearing registration No.HR45B-9838 and got an amount of Rs.4,53,910/- financed from the OP vide agreement dated 08.11.2016. The said amount was repaid in monthly installments of Rs.16,100/- each. The complainant started repaying the loan to the OP  in installments and ultimately, he repaid the entire loan amount. Father of the complainant wanted to obtain another loan and when he applied for the loan, then it was told to him after checking his CIBIL/Credit Score that a sum of Rs.16,100/- is still to be paid by the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant contacted the OP and they informed that one installment of the complainant is due. Complainant got issued the statement of accounts from his banker, which shows that the complainant had paid amount of Rs.32,200/- to the OP by way of bank transfer on 20.12.2018 and on the same day, the complainant had also paid an amount of Rs.16,100/- by way of bank transfer. However, the amount of Rs.16,100/- was paid by the complainant in cash on 21.12.2018 to the OP but OP has not shown the payment of Rs.16,100/- paid by the complainant vide POS 885416028596 to the OP. Complainant requested the OP several times to issue him No Dues Certificate regarding the said loan but the OP intentionally and deliberately prepared forged and fabricated record qua the loan account of the complainant by causing wrongful gain to itself and wrongful loss to the complainant and in this way, there is deficiency in service on the part of OP. Complainant also got served a legal notice dated 12.3.2021 upon the OP through his counsel but to no avail. Hence, the present complaint.  

2.             On notice, OP appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability, jurisdiction, etc. On merits, it is submitting that the OP works under the supervisions, circulars and guidelines of Reserve Bank of India. It is further submitted that the complainant alongwith Gaurav Chahal availed a loan for purchase of vehicle i.e. Maruti Suzuki Swift Dzire VXI bearing registration No.HR45B-9838 to the tune of Rs.4,53,910/- and finance charges applicable was Rs.1,25,690/- under customer ID No.10194878 and total agreement value was Rs.5,79,600/- for the same was executed between the complainant and OP on 08.11.2016. The first due date of installaments was 15.12.2016 and last date was 15.11.2019. The complainant paid all installment except one installment of Rs.16,100/-, which is still due and pending. On merits, it is pleaded that complainant paid all the installments except one installment of Rs.16,100/- which is still due and pending. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Learned counsel or the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of RC Ex.C1, copy of receipt Ex.C2, legal notice Ex.C3, postal receipt Ex.C4, acknowledgement Ex.C5, copy of bank statement Ex.C6 and closed the evidence on 10.08.2022 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of Azad Kumar, Manager-cum-Power of Attorney of Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. as Ex.OP1/A, copy of loan agreement Ex.OP1, copy of loan statement Ex.OP2 and closed the evidence on 28.03.2023 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant had purchased a car and got an amount of Rs.4,53,910/- financed from the OP. The entire loan amount was cleared by the complainant. When father of the complainant applied for another loan, then it was told to him by the OP that a sum of Rs.16,100/- is still pending, whereas the complainant has cleared whole loan amount and nothing was/is pending qua the loan. Despite repeated requests, the OP did not adjust the amount and kept pending one installment in his account, without any reason. Hence, prayed for allowing the present complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OP, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that the complainant alongwith Gaurav Chahal availed a loan for purchase of vehicle to the tune of Rs.4,53,910/- and finance charges applicable was Rs.1,25,690/- and total agreement value was Rs.5,79,600/-. The complainant paid all installment except one installment of Rs.16,100/-, which is still due and pending and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             Admittedly, complainant had obtained vehicle loan from the OP and in this regard an agreement was executed between the parties. It is also admitted that EMI for an amount of Rs.16,100/- was fixed. The dispute between the parties of the present complaint is that an amount of Rs.16,100/- is due towards the loan account.

12.           From the perusal of account statement Ex.C6, it is revealed that on 20.12.2018, complainant has paid an amount of Rs.32,200/- towards repayment of loan amount and on the same day, an amount of Rs.16,100/- was also paid to the OP towards repayment of loan amount but in the loan account statement Ex.OP2, produced by the OP on 20.12.2018 the OP had shown an amount of Rs.16,100/- and on 21.12.2018, an amount of Rs.16,100/- in the loan account of the complainant despite Rs.48,300/-. Meaning thereby, on 20.12.2018, the complainant deposited Rs.48,300/- towards repayment of loan amount but the Ops had deposited an amount of Rs.32,200/-, hence, an amount of Rs.16,100/- still shown to be pending in the loan account of the complainant, but the same is due to fault of the OP.

14.           The onus to prove that one installment was pending towards the complainant was lied upon the OP but OP has miserably failed to prove its version by leading any cogent and convincing evidence, rather it is evident from the loan account statement Ex.C6 that complainant has paid Rs.16,100/- which has alleged by the OP is pending.  Hence, the act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

15.           Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP to issue No Dues Certificate to the complainant and get the CIBIL score of the complainant rectified.  We further direct the OP to pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and Rs.5500/- for the litigation expense. This order shall be complied within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. It is made clear if the awarded amount not paid within stipulated period then interest @ 9% per annum shall be charged on the awarded amount from the date of announcement of order till its realization. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

 

Announced

Dated:16.05.2023  

 

                                                                  President,

                                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                       Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)             (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

                     Member                          Member