Punjab

Nawanshahr

CC/107/2016

Satpal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Makkar Motors Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

In person

04 Sep 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR.

 

                     Consumer Complaint No.  107 of 24.11.2016

                      Date of Decision             :   04.09.2017

 

 

Satpal Singh son of Faqir Chand Resident of Village Fatehpur, Post Office Mazara Jattan, Tehsil Balachaur, District SBS Nagar.                                                                                     ….Complainant

Versus

1. Makkar Motor Private Limited, Chandigarh Road, Nawanshahr, through Manager (Phone Number:01823-285413).
2. Gurmukh Singh Resident of Nighi, Tehsil Balachaur, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Agent Cholamandalam Investment (Mobile No.94638-01304).
3. M/s Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Company Limited Private Limited, Dare House, Number-2, N.S.C. Bose Road, Parrys, Chennai 600001, Branch Office Jalandhar, through Manager Sukhwinder Singh (Mobile No.98889-99135).                                                                          ….Opposite Parties

                   Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

cOUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant   :         In person.

For OP No.1        :         Complaint already DAW.

For OP No.2.       :         Ex parte.

For OP No.3.       :         Sh.Gurcharan Singh, Advocate

 

QUORUM:

S.KARNAIL SINGH, PRESIDENT

S.KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER

ORDER

S.KARNAIL SINGH, PRESIDENT

1. This complaint has been filed by complainant wherein it is alleged that he purchased one new Bolero Camper SC XL from OP-1 and pay Rs.1,66,400/- and remaining amount was got loan from OP-3.  The insurance of the vehicle was also got.  The EMI of the installment of was fixed for Rs.11,400/-.  The bill of the vehicle was issued by OP No.1 for an amount for Rs.5,36,877/-.  Whereby, excess amount was received from complainant but it was not account far.
2. The complainant was used to pay an EMI of Rs.11,205/- of the total amount of Rs.4,00,000/-.  The complainant was agreed that the loan amount will be paid by 46 monthly installments.  The complainant used to make the payment of EMI alongwith interest if any time installment was late. At the last time, OP-3 issued to complainant, the statement of account dated 11.07.2016 and shown the balance amount of Rs.2439/- and thereafter, the OP-3 got another installment of Rs.11,300/- on 11.07.2016 but when the complainant demanded clearance certificate, then agent of OP-3 started to demand Rs.12,000/- from complainant and also got excess amount of Rs.21261/- from complainant, whereby the OP-3 harassed the complainant mentally and as such the complainant is entitled for compensation and further prayed that the OPs be directed to return the excess received amount to the complainant alongwith compensation of Rs.20,000/-.
3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but complaint against OP-1 already dismissed as withdrawn, and despite service OP No.2 did not come and OP-2 was proceeded against ex-parte, whereas, OP No.3 appeared through counsel and filed written statement and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complainant has not approached to this Forum with clean hands, so he is not entitled for relief claimed.  The complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum.  True facts are that the complainant with Sandeep Kaur (co-borrower) have approached and requested the answering OP for grant of loan/financial assistance for purchase of Bolero Pick Up i.e. vehicle in question and availed the loan facility against one advance EMI.  Accordingly, loan agreement No.XVFPJDR00000805385 was executed and answering OP disbursed a sum of Rs.4,02,000/- as loan amount, out of which Rs.11205/- was deducted as advance EMI and other sum of Rs.5455/- was charged qua to the PAC Premium, Documentations charges, Roll Over PDC charges, service charges.  This fact can be corroborated from the release letter, operation checklist and advance EMI Form duly signed by the complainant.  Copy of which are attached herewith.  Remaining amount of Rs.3,85,340/- was paid to Makkar Motors Pvt. Ltd, Jalandhar qua to the remaining sale amount of the vehicle. Thus, there is no liability or deficiency/cheating on the part of answering OP.  It is further averred that as per terms and conditions of the agreement executed between the complainant and answering OP, the complainant has to repay the loan amount alongwith interest in 46 installments, each to be paid on every first day of each month from 01.10.2012 to 01.07.2016 apart from the advance EMI.  The complainant never maintained financial discipline in the payment of the monthly installment to the answering OP.  The detailed account statement annexed herewith clearly reveals that since from the inception, the complainant many a times defaulted in payment of the installments by the stipulated day and there have been regular defaults by the complainant.  On 11.07.2016, a sum of Rs.34085/- was outstanding against the complainant.  This fact is corroborated from the statement of account provided by the complainant on record whereby it is specifically mentioned that a sum of Rs.34,085/- is pending as net receivable.  The complainant has filed this false and frivolous complaint against answering OP with false averments just to extract money from the answering OP and to avoid and evade his liability towards the answering OP.  There is no deficiency on the part of the answering OP. A sum of Rs.13,645/- is still payable by the complainant to answering OP as on 09.01.2017, which answering OP is entitled to recover from complainant.  The detailed account statement of complainant is annexed herewith and the same be read as part of this para.  The complainant is liable to pay the outstanding amount to answering OP qua to the loan facility and further averred that the present complaint is legally not maintainable.  The complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint.  The complainant has no cause of action.  The complaint is hopelessly time barred.  This Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint as the loan agreement contains an Arbitration Clause.  The parties to the agreement consented to refer the dispute to the arbitrator. On merits, it is admitted that complainant has obtained loan of Rs.4,02,000/- which has been paid in 46 installments alongwith interest apart from the advance EMI.  Other the allegations made in the complaint are categorically denied and prayed that complaint is without merit and same may be dismissed.
4. In order to prove the case, complainant himself has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith photocopies of documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-11 and closed the evidence.
5. Similarly, counsel for the OP No.3 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Vikal Sharma Ex.OP3/A alongwith photocopies of documents Ex.OP3/1 to Ex.OP3/5 and closed the evidence.
6. We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for OP No.3 and also gone through complaint file alongwith documents very minutely.
7. After considering arguments and from the scrutiny of case file, it is revealed that counsel for OP-3 has categorically taken certain legal plea in the written statement i.e. complaint is hopelessly time barred, but failed to establish that how it is time barred. The plea of the OP is not proved.  Further alleged that this Forum is not having jurisdiction to entertain this complaint because there is an arbitration clause and this case can be referred for arbitration. We have considered the said plea of the OP. In this regard, the remedy given to the complainant under Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy and moreover the matter has not been referred to Arbitration. In these circumstances, we do not find any merits in the plea of answering OP.
8. Coming to main controversy as elaborated in the complaint is that the OP-3 has obtained excess amount of Rs.31,262/- from the complainant, apart from that the OP-3 has further demanded Rs.12,000/- and despite repeated request OP-3 has not issued No Objection Certificate and further alleged that the complainant in Para No.2 of the complaint as alleged that as per statement of account dated 11.07.2016 a sum of Rs.2439/- has been shown due towards complainant.  We think that the said statement of account dated 11.07.2016 is required deep glance and accordingly we find that the said statement of account dated 11.07.2016 as produced on the file by the complainant as Ex.C-9 and accordingly, we have gone through the said statement and find that submission made by complainant is not true that Rs.2439/- has been shown towards complainant, but the net amount recoverable towards complainant is shown as 34085/- not 2439/-.  So here the complainant himself is in mistake and if this mistake is rectified and go according to the statement of account dated 11.07.2016 then a sum of Rs.34085/- was due towards the  complainant on 11.07.2016.  Thereafter, the complainant paid some installments, then as per statement of account dated 09.01.2017 which Ex.OP3/4 the receivable amount from complainant is shown Rs.13645/- so it means that still as on 09.01.2017 a sum of Rs.13645/- is due towards complainant.  So from all angle it is established that OP-3 is not get any excess amount from complainant, if these things are not proved then complaint of the complainant found without merits and accordingly, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
9. Complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
10. Copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules.

Dated 04.09.2017                                                         

 

                             

(Kanwaljeet Singh)                (Karnail Singh)

Member                                  President