Haryana

Sonipat

CC/143/2015

SURENDER S/O SURAJ BHAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA FINANCE SERVICES LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

PUSHP KUMAR

08 Dec 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

 

                                Complaint No.143 of 2015

                                Instituted on:29.04.2015

                                Date of order:17.12.2015

 

Surender son of Late Suraj Bhan, r/o village Nahri, tehsil and distt. Sonepat.

 

                                                     ...Complainant.

 

                        Versus

 

Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Services Ltd. office at Raj Mahal Building, Baba Tarana road, near Gandhi Chowk, Sonepat through its Manager.

 

                                                     ...Respondent.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. SK Sharma, Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. Anil Sidhar, Adv. for respondent.

 

BEFORE-    NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

          SMT.PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

           D.V.RATHI, MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

 

         Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondent alleging therein that the complainant’s father Suraj Bhan has purchased a tractor no.HR10H/7941 and the said tractor was got financed with the respondent for Rs.240000/-. The complainant had paid the whole finance amount with the respondent on 25.3.2010.  The complainant is in need of NOC regarding the vehicle and he has requested the respondent for the issuance of the NOC, but of no use and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.

2.        In reply, the respondent has submitted that the complainant has paid Rs.3,30,000/- on 25.3.2010 but the additional financial charges of Rs.1,32,558/- is balance amount lying outstanding towards the complainant and the complainant has not paid the said amount to the respondent. Until and unless the balance amount is paid by the complainant, NOC cannot be issued to the complainant.

3.      We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and has gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

4.      Ld. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the financial amount was Rs.2,40,000/- and the complainant has paid Rs.3,30,000/- on 25.3.2010 but the additional financial charges of Rs.1,32,558/- is balance amount lying outstanding towards the complainant and the complainant has not paid the said amount to the respondent. Until and unless the balance amount is paid by the complainant, NOC cannot be issued to the complainant.

        In the present case, on 12.10.2015 ld. Counsel for the respondent has made a statement that the reply which has been filed by the respondent be also read as affidavit in evidence of the respondent.  So, in this way, except the written statement, the respondent has not placed on record any document in support of their case.  Whereas the complainant in support of his case has placed on record the copies of documents Annexure C1 to C11.

 

        No account statement has been placed on record by the respondent to prove how the amount of Rs.132558/- is lying due towards the complainant.   In the absence of the same, it cannot be presumed that the amount of Rs.132558/- is lying due towards the complainant. Thus, we hereby direct the respondent to issue the no objection certificate to the complainant in respect of the vehicle in question.

 

        With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands disposed off.

 

       Certified copy of this order be provided to  both the parties free of costs.

 

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)        (DV Rathi)                 (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF        Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced: 17.12.2015