Punjab

Faridkot

CC/17/83

Gurpreet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager LDT FINANCE Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

18 Mar 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

C. C. No. :                      83 of 2017

Date of Institution:        17.03.2017

Date of Decision :          18.03.2019

 

Gurpreet Singh s/o Harbans Singh s/o Gulzar Singh r/o Village Channian, Tehsil and District Faridkot.                                                                         ...Complainant

Versus

1. M/s  L and T Finance Ltd Company, Ground Floor, SCF 123, GT Road, Bathinda through Manager Simranjit Singh.
2. Simranjit Singh s/o Bhupinder Singh r/o National Colony, Bathinda through Manager.
3. Iqbal Singh Cashier, M/s  L and T Finance Ltd Company, Bathinda.
4. Parwinder Singh Cashier s/o Prem Kumar village Sukhan Wala, District Faridkot M/s  L and T Finance Ltd Company, Bathinda.

                                            ....Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present:      Complainant in person,    

                  Sh Ranvik Mehta, Ld Counsel for OPs.

ORDER

 (Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                    

cc no.-83 of 2017

                                                           Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ops seeking directions to OPs to return the tractor of complainant, to release NOC, cancel the loan and to pay Rs.80,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment besides litigation expenses.

2                                         Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant is that complainant is a poor person and on 4.08.2012, he purchased a tractor with the help of loan provided by OP-1. It is submitted that price of tractor was Rs.5,25,000/-. Complainant paid Rs.2,35,000/-to agency in case and remaining amount was paid to tractor agency by complainant with the help of loan of Rs.3,00,000/-taken from OP-1. Amount of loan was to be recovered from complainant in 16 instalments of Rs.29,500/-each for four years. Employees of OPs i.e OP-3 and 4 used to visit the house of complainant to take loan instalment and sometimes they issue receipt and sometimes make lame excuses to give in next month. Four months ago, OP-2 to 4 told complainant that they are going to sanction loan of Rs.1,25,000/-to complainant to clear his previous loan amount and even despite refusal by complainant for further loan, they sanctioned loan in favour of complainant, but did not give him single penny of loan amount. On 24.09.2016 OP-2 to 4 visited the place of complainant and forcibly took his tractor with them. Complainant made several requests to them that he has already cleared the loan taken from them, but they did not bother to hear him. Complainant humbly submitted that he is a poor fellow and he earns his livelihood only with the help of tractor which OPs have illegally and forcibly took away. Father of complainant

cc no.-83 of 2017

made application regarding this grievance of complainant to SSP, Faridkot and Enquiry Officer appointed by SSP, Faridkot advised him to pursue his right through court. Action of OPs in not returning the tractor of complainant amounts to deficiency in service and is an illegal act, which has caused great harassment and mental agony to him. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses. Hence, the  instant complaint.

3                                               The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 27.03.2017, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

 4                                                       In reply, OPs took preliminary objections that complaint filed by complainant is false, frivolous and vexatious and allegations regarding forcibly taking of vehicle and granting of additional loan of Rs.1,25,000/-without his consent are totally baseless and false. It is averred that complainant is not the consumer of OPs as complainant took loan from them for purchasing a tractor for commercial purpose i.e for earning huge profits and thus, complainant does not come under the definition of consumer. Complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts to get favour of this Forum. True facts are that complainant took loan from them and agreed to repay the same in 16 equal half yearly instalments, but complainant was never regular and punctual in repayment of instalments and thus, considerable amount is over due towards complainant due to his constant neglect. Despite issuance of several reminders, complainant failed to become regular in paying instalments. Dues outstaying against complainant were becoming higher and

cc no.-83 of 2017

complainant neither cleared the pending instalments nor gave reply to the notices and reminders issued by them. Therefore, as per agreement, Ops Company initiated arbitration proceedings in which complainant did not appear and he was proceeded against exparte. The Arbitrator passed award dt 17.11.2014 but till date, complainant has not paid a single penny to satisfy the award. Moreover, this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint and even complainant is stopped by his own act and conduct to file the present complaint. No cause of action arises against OPs and this matter cannot be decided in this Forum having summary procedure as it involves lengthy evidence. Complainant has concealed the material facts from the Forum and has filed this complaint with ulterior motive to obtain undue advantage. However, on merits OPs have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and specifically denied that answering OPs never visited the place of complainant to take loan instalment and it is sternly refused that complainant had repaid the loan amount to the tune of Rs.4,50,000/- to OPs in instalments. As per OPs they have not forcibly taken his vehicle, rather as per agreement of loan, complainant availed loan against the said tractor and he himself gave consent to take the same. All the other allegations levelled by complainant are false and frivolous and are denied with prayer to dismiss the complaint with costs.

5                                           Ld counsel for complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 and C-12, affidavit of Bohar Singh Ex C-13 and documents Ex C-2 to C-11,  C-14 and C-15 and then, closed the evidence.

 

cc no.-83 of 2017

 

6                                                          To controvert the evidence of complainant, ld counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Saurav Saini as Ex OP-1, documents Ex OP-2 to 12 and then closed the same on behalf of OPs.

7                                                        We have heard the counsel for complainant  and have also carefully gone through the pleadings and evidence of complainant. The case of the complainant is that on 4.08.2012, he purchased a tractor with the help of loan provided by OP-1. Price of tractor was Rs.5,25,000/-, complainant paid Rs.2,35,000/-to agency in cash and remaining amount was paid to tractor agency with the help of loan of Rs.3,00,000/-taken from OP-1. Amount of loan was to be recovered from complainant in 16 instalments of Rs.29,500/-each for four years. Employees of OPs i.e OP-3 and 4 used to visit the house of complainant to take loan instalment and sometimes they issue receipt and sometimes make lame excuses to give in next month. Four months ago, despite resistance, OP-2 to 4 sanctioned loan of Rs.1,25,000/-to complainant to clear his previous loan amount and even did not give him single penny of loan amount. On 24.09.2016 OP-2 to 4 forcibly took his tractor and despite his several requests that he has already cleared the loan taken from them, did not bother to hear him. Complainant humbly submitted that he is a poor fellow and earns his livelihood only with the help of tractor which OPs have illegally and forcibly kept in their possession. Father of complainant made application regarding this grievance of complainant to SSP, Faridkot and Enquiry Officer appointed by him advised him to pursue his right

 

cc no.-83 of 2017

 

through court. Action of OPs in not returning his tractor  and depriving him to earn his livelihood amounts to deficiency in service and is an illegal act, which has caused great harassment and mental agony to him. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses.  In reply, OPs have contradicted all the allegations of complainant being false, frivolous and vexatious and allegations regarding forcibly taking of vehicle and granting of additional loan of Rs.1,25,000/-without his consent are sternly denied. It is averred that complainant is not their consumer as he took loan for purchasing a tractor for commercial purpose i.e for earning huge profits and thus, he does not come under the definition of consumer. Complainant agreed to repay the same in 16 equal half yearly instalments, but he never paid any instalment regularly and thus, considerable amount is over due. He neither cleared the pending instalments nor gave reply to the notices and reminders issued by them. Ops initiated arbitration proceedings in which complainant did not appear and was proceeded against exparte. The Arbitrator passed award dt 17.11.2014 but till date, complainant has not paid a single penny to satisfy the award. It is specifically denied that OPs visited the place of complainant to take loan instalment and complainant had repaid the loan amount of Rs.4,50,000/- in instalments. OPs have not forcibly taken his vehicle, rather as per agreement of loan, complainant availed loan against the said tractor and he himself gave consent to take the same. All the other allegations are denied with prayer to dismiss the complaint with costs.

 

cc no.-83 of 2017

 

8                                            To prove their averments, ld  counsel for OPs has relied upon document Ex OP-2 i.e copy of loan cum hypothecation agreement that clears the point that Ops did everything as per agreement between the parties. This agreement bears signature of complainant as well as witnesses wherein he pledged to repay all the loan instalment in time, but he failed to do so. Document Ex OP-3 to Ex OP-7 are copies of letters issued by OPs to complainant and his guarantor on various dates requiring him to make payment of loan instalments as per terms and conditions of agreement, but despite several reminders and issuance of letters, complainant failed to deposit the instalments as per agreement and himself violated the terms and conditions of loan agreement. Ex OP-11 is the copy of Foreclosure/ Closure Simulation Report dated 20.04.2017 in the name of Gurpreet Singh complainant that clearly proves the version of OPs that amount of Rs.2,16,649.57 is due towards complainant which he failed to repay and due to failure on the part of complainant in making payment of instalments against his loan agreement, he was flagged under legal case by Ops. OPs have totally refused that they ever visited the place of complainant to take instalment amount. OPs have adduced sufficient and cogent evidence to prove their version. Documents produced by OPs seem to be authentic and there appears to be no place for the allegations of complainant.The opposite parties levied all the charges to the account of the complainant as per agreement agreed between the parties. They never violated any rule and regulation and AFC has been charged as per agreement duly signed by the complainant. There is no deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of

cc no.-83 of 2017

 

opposite parties. They are entitled to recover the amount due towards the complainant against total loan amount alongwith annual financial charges.

9                                        Ld Counsel for OPs brought before the Forum that complainant has never been regular and punctual in making payment of installments. Despite issuance of several notices and reminders, complainant did  not bother to clear the outstanding amount. After considering the act of non payment of dues by complainant, they followed proper procedure and repossessed the vehicle from him as per terms and conditions of the agreement. Stand taken by OPs is that due to violations of terms and conditions by complainant by not making payment of installments due, they started arbitration proceedings against him, but he did not appear before the Arbitrator and was proceeded against exparte. M Sankaranarayanan Arbitrator passed award dated 17.11.2014 against complainant and he was asked to make payment of Rs.2,49,391/- alongwith interest at the rate of 24% from 21.08.2014 till payment as award amount, but complainant has not paid any amount to settle the award amount and therefore, account of complainant was foreclosed as he defaulted in repayment of his loan amount. Despite issuance of notices and several reminders, complainant failed to make payment of his loan amount and himself breached the terms and conditions of loan agreement.

10                                                   From the above discussion and keeping in view all the documents and evidence placed on record, it is observed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and they have followed the right procedure to recover the loan granted to complainant as complainant himself defaulted in

cc no.-83 of 2017

 

making payment of loan installments and has violated the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. Hence, complaint filed by complainant is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits. However, in peculiar circumstances of the case, there are no orders as to costs. Copy of the order be sent to the parties, free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated: 18.03.2019

     (Param Pal Kaur)                (Ajit Aggarwal)                   Member                               President