Uttar Pradesh

Aligarh

CC/226/2021

DHRAMENDRA SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANAGER MAHENDRA & MAHENDRA FIENCE SERVICES LTD - Opp.Party(s)

27 Apr 2023

ORDER

न्यायालय जिला उपभोक्ता विवाद प्रतितोष आयोग अलीगढ

Complaint Case No. CC/226/2021 ( Date of Filing : 01 Dec 2021 )   1. DHRAMENDRA SINGH S/O BHIKKI SINGH R/O CHOTI BALLBH NAGLA BIRKHU ALIGARH ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. MANAGER MAHENDRA & MAHENDRA FIENCE SERVICES LTD FIRST FLOOR H22 RAGHAV PALAZA QURASI FARM ROAD VIKRAM COLONY ALIGARH 2. MANAGER VINEET AUTOMOBILES PVT LTD DELHI ALIGARH GT ROAD ALIGARH ............Opp.Party(s)

BEFORE:     HON'BLE MR. HASNAIN QURESHI PRESIDENT   HON'BLE MR. ALOK UPADHYAYA MEMBER   HON'BLE MRS. PURNIMA SINGH RAJPOOT MEMBER

PRESENT:

Dated : 27 Apr 2023

Final Order / Judgement The present complaint has been filed by the complainant before this commission for  the following reliefs- The Ops be directed to provide the statement of the loan account. To provide the time to pay the EMI at simple interest as per loan agreement. OP be directed to waive the penal interest and the vehicle unauthorizedly taken be not sold by auction. The cost of litigation. The Complainant has stated that he had booked a car on 21.05.2019 with op no.2 and paid the total amount Rs. 353871 on different dates. The car was insured Rs.967001/. The vehicle was finance for Rs. 613130/ by the OP no.2 for 36 month with EMI Rs.23700/ per month. He had paid 29 EMI and further he could not pay the EMI due to lock down. Complainant has to pay the outstanding amount Rs.233300/. Complainant contacted the Op to make payment but they demanded the amount arbitrarily on 26.10.2021 Op no.1 demanded 54 EMI, then the complainant asked to show his file to know the correct no. of EMI but it was refused. Complainant wants to make clear the dues but the Op wants to grab the amount more.  Op no.1 has not contested the case despite of sufficient service and only Op no.2 has filed the WS. Op no.2 has stated that the complainant had booked a car on 21.5.2019 and he had paid Rs.311020/ and the amount of Rs. 353871/ cost of the car as shown by the complainant is wrong. Complainant has filed his affidavit and papers in support of his pleadings. Op no.2 has also filed affidavits in support of their  pleadings. We have perused the material available on record and heard the parties counsel. The first question of consideration before us is whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claim?  Complainant has pleaded in the complaint that he had purchased a car finance by the Op no.1 and paid 29 EMI out of 36EMI whereas Op has been demanding more EMIs. Complainant has alleged to make the payment as per terms and conditions of the hypothecation/loan agreement. It is evident that the reliefs are based on terms and conditions of the hypothecation/loan agreement. Complainant has not file the hypothecation/loan agreement and the oral   statement made in the complaint is inadmissible as the matter was reduced in writing in the form of document. Thus the complaint case is not proved in the absence of hypothecation/loan agreement. Accordingly complainant is not entitle to any relief.    The question formulated above is decided against  the complainant.  We hereby dismiss the Case.   A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties as per rule as mandated by Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The judgment be uploaded as per rule on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this judgment.

[HON'BLE MR. HASNAIN QURESHI] PRESIDENT     [HON'BLE MR. ALOK UPADHYAYA] MEMBER     [HON'BLE MRS. PURNIMA SINGH RAJPOOT] MEMBER