STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T., CHANDIGARH
Appeal No. | : | 163 of 2017 |
Date of Institution | : | 13.06.2017 |
Date of Decision | : | 28.08.2017 |
Satyawan Sharma, Aged about 46 years, son of Sh.Rameshwar Sharma, R/o H.No.2035, Sector 45, Burail, Chandigarh
……Appellant
V e r s u s
1] Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Service Limited, SCO No.2247-2248, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.
2] Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Limited, Head Office: 4th Floor, Mahindra Tower, Dr.GM Bhosle Marg, PK Kurne Chowk, Worli Mumbai 400 018 through its Managing Director.
…….Respondents
Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against order dated 02.05.2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No. 90/2015.
BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.
MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.
MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER
Argued by: Mr.Devinder Kumar, advocate for the appellant.
Mr.Varun Bhardwaj, advocate for the respondents.
PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT
Appellant/Complainant has filed this appeal against order dated 2.5.2017, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (in short the Forum only), vide which his complaint was disposed of without granting any compensatory cost towards alleged deficiency in providing service by the respondents/Opposite Parties.
2. As per facts on record, in September,2010, the complainant purchased one Mahindra Bolero pick up vehicle by raising loan of Rs.4,03,000/- from the Opposite Parties. The loan was to be repaid in 48 installments of Rs.11,485/- each per month. He sold that vehicle to one Rajesh Kumar. On request made, loan was transferred in the name of the purchaser and NOC was issued. For the said process, OPs charged an amount of Rs.30,000/-. Accordingly the vehicle was transferred in the name of Sh.Rajesh Kumar. It was told to him that on transferring the balance loan amount in the name of the purchaser, he need not to pay anything further to clear his account. In the month of December,2014, the complainant wanted to raise a housing loan. On enquiry, he was told that his name was being reflected in the name of defaulters shown on the website of Credit Information Bureau (India) Limited (CIBIL) qua a loan taken in the year,2010. He contacted OPs and they demanded Rs.80,105/- towards defaulted amount. Under above circumstances, he deposited the said amount on 2.1.2015. Despite receiving the said amount, his name was not removed from the list of defaulters shown on the website of CIBIL. He sent a legal notice but failed to get any reply.
3. Upon notice, reply was filed by the OPs. Issuance of NOC in favour of the purchaser Rajesh Kumar was denied. The complainant sent one letter to OPs stating that in future installments towards loan account will be paid by the purchaser. It was further stated that after getting the vehicle transferred in the name of Sh.Rajesh Kumar, copy of the new registration certificate showing hypothecation of the vehicle in the said R.C. was not supplied to the OPs, on account of which, his name continued to be shown in the list of defaulters. It was further stated that after repeated requests, an amount of Rs.80105/- was deposited towards loan raised in the year 2010, on 2.1.2015. It was further said that as per report made by CIBIL on 18.7.2015, amount due towards complainant was shown as zero.
4. Both the parties led evidence. The Forum, on analysis of pleadings, documents on record, and arguments addressed, disposed of the complaint by observing as under ;
“The complainant Satyawan Sharma obtained loan of Rs.4,03,000/- in September, 2010. The principle loan amount of Rs.4,03,000/- along with financial charges of Rs.1,42,340/- was returnable in 47 installments of Rs.11,485/- per month and one installment of Rs.5545/- within 11.9.2010 to 11.8.2014 as per loan agreement (Ex.D-1).
The complainant sold his vehicle to Rajesh Kumar and on his request, accordingly, the OPs issued NOC regarding change of ownership of Mahindra Balero to the name of Rajesh Kumar vide letter dated 23.5.2011 and later issued NOC for removal of Hypothecation clause from the Registration Certificate/Insurance Policy vide letter dated 19.1.2015 after receipt of balance loan amount of Rs.80,105/- on 2.1.2015.
The complainant failed to submit new Registration Certificate transferred in the name of Rajesh Kumar and as such, his name stood in the record of loan account of the OPs and also in the record of Credit Information Bureau (India) Limited (Ex.D-3).
The complainant has sold his vehicle to Rajesh Kumar in 2011 and transferred the balance loan account in his favour, but later did not updated the OPs about actual transfer of vehicle in name of Rajesh Kumar.
The facts and circumstances, as discussed in preceding paragraphs, do not warranty imposition of any compensatory costs upon the OPs.”
The complaint was disposed of directing OPs to reconcile their record and update the CIBIL Consumer credit Information Report to get his name removed from the list of defaulters.
5. In appeal, it was stated that there was deficiency in providing service for which OPs were to be burdened with heavy cost. It was further said that on account of his name, wrongly shown in the list of defaulters, he failed to get further loan, causing loss to him.
We have heard the arguments and seen the record. It is not in dispute that in the month of January,2015, towards loan account, an amount of Rs.80105/- was paid by the complainant. It is his case that the said amount was not payable. If it was so, he should have claimed refund of that amount when complaint was filed before the Forum. However, it was not so done. The above fact clearly shows that the amount of loan was due and not paid. Furthermore, it is also proved on record that after getting the vehicle transferred in the name of Rajesh Kumar, copy of the registration certificate was not handed over to the OPs. The said copy was necessary to show that the vehicle stood hypothecated with the OPs. There is nothing on record to show that when he applied for loan it was rejected on account of his name being shown as defaulter on the website of CIBIL. Under the above circumstances, we find no case made out to interfere in the order, under challenge.
6. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.
7. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
8. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced.
28.08.2017
