Punjab

Patiala

CC/10/508

Ranjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Megma Fine corp - Opp.Party(s)

MaHesh Puri

22 Sep 2011

ORDER


DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, PATIALADISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM,#9A, OPPOSITE NIHAL BAGH PATIALA
CONSUMER CASE NO. 10 of 508
1. Ranjit Singh ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. Megma Fine corp ...........Respondent(s)


For the Appellant :MaHesh Puri, Advocate for
For the Respondent :

Dated : 22 Sep 2011
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.

 

                                                Complaint No.CC/10/ 508   of 29.6.2010 

                                                Decided on:          22.9.2011

 

Ranjeet Singh S/o Sh.Gurbachan Singh R/o Village Nandgarh, Tehsil Guhla,District Kaithal.

 

                                                                             -----------Complainant

                                      Versus

 

1.                 The Managing Director, Magma Fincorp Limited, Magma House,24, Park Street,Kolkata.

2.                 Zonal Manager, Magma Fincorp Limited,SCO 75, 2nd Floor,Phase-9,Mohali.

3.                 Branch Manager, Magma Fincorp Limited, 2nd Floor, SCO-1, Avtar Colony, Kunjpura Road, Karnal(Haryana)

4.                 Branch Manager, Magma Fincorp Limited, 2nd Floor, Car Life Building, Opposite Head Post Office, Patiala

 

                                                                             ----------Opposite parties.

 

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

 

                                      QUORUM

 

                                      Sh.D.R.Arora, President

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

                                                                            

Present:

For the complainant:     Sh.Mahesh Puri, Advocate

For opposite parties:     Sh.J.P.Sharma , Advocate

                                     

                                         ORDER

 

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

                   The complainant purchased one truck HTV 2515 bearing registration No.HR-64-B-6518 make Tata Motors Ltd. having got the same financed from the ops for an amount of Rs.9.80,000/- on 23.5.2005 vide proposal no.PG/0042/V/04/000020 to be payable in 45 installments of Rs.24800/- per month.

2.       The complainant also raised a loan of Rs.4,00,000/- as truck body loan/business  from the ops vide proposal no.PG/0042/L/06/000005 on 317.2007 having agreed to repay the same in 24 installments of Rs.20020/- per month.

3.       The complainant had settled the loan accounts with the ops and the complainant paid the installments of Rs.24055/- alongwith delayed payment charges of Rs.10885/- in respect of proposal No.000020 and similarly he paid the installment of Rs.60060/- alongwith delayed payment charges of Rs.15000/- in respect of proposal no.000005on 2.2.2010 respectively and the account of the complainant was closed. Receipts bearing MR No.5348063 dated 2.2.2010 and MR5220020 dated 2.2.2010 and the copy of the ledger dated 5.5.2010 showing the closure of the accounts in respect of proposal no.000005 and similarly the copy of the ledger dated 5.5.2010 showing the closure of the account in respect of proposal no.000020 were issued to the complainant. The copies of the ledgers also show that the ops had terminated/closed the loan account on 14.2.2010.

4.       The complainant requested the ops to get the HPA cancelled as per the entry made in RC and to issue the NOC but they failed to do so. Accordingly, the complainant has approached this Forum through the present complaint brought under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986( for short the Act) for a direction to issue the NOC and also to award him a compensation in a sum of Rs.50000/- .

5.       On notice, ops appeared and filed their written version having raised certain preliminary objections, interalia, that the territorial jurisdiction of the Forum is lacking because as per the contract arrived at between the parties only Kolkata courts have the jurisdiction to try the complaint; that as per the terms and conditions of the agreement all disputes/differences claims and questions are  referable to the Sole Arbitrator and therefore, Forum lacks jurisdiction; that the complainant is not a consumer as the vehicle financed to the complainant was commercial one and was being used for commercial purposes and that there being no privity of contract between the complainant and the seller in as much as the payment of the truck had not been made by the complainant and the relationship being based on hire-purchase agreement, he is not a consumer under the Act. As regards the facts of the complaint, it is sufficed to note that ops have not denied the complainant having made the entire payment of the loan in the two accounts. Rather it is the plea taken up by the ops that the complainant is liable to pay the amount in other accounts as a borrower and also as a guarantor as per the details of the cases given in para no.4 of the written statement. The complainant after settling the accounts had refused to settle/regularize his other accounts. It is also averred that the ops is a finance company and has no intention to stop the NOC or to harass its customers. However, the complainant is bound to clear his outstanding amount which forms the essence of the agreement. Company is willing to issue the NOC to the complainant provided the complainant cleared all of his dues of his own accounts and in respect of the accounts in which he stood as a guarantor and ultimately it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.

6.       In support of his complaint, the complainant produced in evidence,Ex.CW/A his sworn affidavit alongwith documents, Exs.C2 to C5 and his learned counsel closed the evidence.

7.       On the other hand, on behalf of the ops, their learned counsel produced in evidence Ex.RW1/A the sworn affidavit of Sandeep Bakshi,Assistant Manager(Legal) of op no.2 alongwith documents Exs.R1 to R15 and closed their evidence.

8.       The parties filed the written arguments. We have examined the same, heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence on record.

9.       It is not disputed by the ops that the complainant had deposited the entire amount of the two loan accounts No.PG/0042/V/04/000020 and loan account No.PG/0042/L/06/000005, a fact to have been established by the complainant with the help of Ex.C2, the statement of account in respect of proposal No.PG/0042/V/04/000020 showing the agreement having been terminated on 26.2.2010 on account of closure of the account having made the balance nil and Ex.C3 the copy of the statement of account in respect of proposal No.PG/0042/L/06/000005 showing the date of the termination of the agreement as 14.2.2010 on the closure of the account.

10.     It is no where the plea taken up by the ops that the complainant was due to pay anything in the two accounts.

11.     The ops have come forward with the plea that the complainant after having settled his said accounts refused to settle/regularize his  other accounts , the details of which has been given in para no.4 of the written statement and in respect of which the ops have also produced the copies of the statements of account. Exs.R4 to R6 in respect of his own cases and Exs.R7 to R14 in respect of the loan cases of Prabhjeet Singh,Kulwant Singh,Arvinder Singh, Arvinder Singh, Vikramjit Singh, Vikramjit Singh, Vikramjit Singh, Vikramjit Singh and Vikramjit Singh in respect of whom he stood as a guarantor.

12.     Howerver, the learned counsel for the ops failed to point out any agreement to have been arrived at between the complainant and the ops which may provide that the ops will issue the NOC in respect of the proposal Nos.PG/0042/V/04/000020 and No.PG/0042/L/06/000005 only in case the loanee would discharge his liability in respect of the other loans raised by him or having stood as a guarantor of the other loanees in the absence of which it would appear that the ops were not justified in refusing to issue the NOC despite the accounts having been closed and the agreement having been terminated ,rather it amounted to an unfair trade practice on the part of the ops.

13.     The learned counsel for the ops made a reference to Ex.R15, copy of the statement to have been made by the complainant before the Lok Adalat held on 15.9.2009 in case Ranjit Singh Vs.M.D.Magma Finance that as per the decision of the Lok Adalat he(complainant) shall clear the outstanding amount of Rs.1,40,000/- in two installments of Rs.70,000/- and in case he failed to pay the installments, the Finance Company will be entitled to get the vehicle No.PB11D6518 surrendered. Apparently, the said statement has nothing to do with the controversy involved in the complaint because the same pertained to vehicle No.PB11D6518 whereas the present complaint pertains to truck No.HR-64-B-6518.Moreover, the accounts of the complainant were closed by the ops and they terminated the agreement.

14.     Simply because the complainant had purchased one truck with the loan financed by the ops it would not mean that the complainant is using the same for commercial purposes and not for earning his livelihood and therefore, the jurisdiction of the Forum can not be said to be barred as per the plea taken up by the ops.

15.     As an upshot of our aforesaid discussion, it would appear that the complainant has paid the entire loan amount in the two accounts and the accounts have been closed and the agreements have been terminated. The ops had no option but to issue the NOC to the complainant and therefore failure to do so under the guise that the complainant should discharge his liability in respect of his own loan cases as also in the loan cases of the others in which he stood as a guarantor amounts to an unfair trade practice on the part of the ops. We accordingly accept the complaint and give a direction to the ops to issue the NOC in respect of the two loan accounts within one month on receipt of the certified copy of the order. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we also award the complainant with a compensation in a sum of Rs.15000/- for the harassment and the mental agony experienced by him at the hands of the ops and the same also includes the costs of the complaint.

Pronounced.

Dated:22.9.2011

 

                                                Neelam Gupta                  D.R.Arora

                                                Member                            President

 

 

 

 

                                     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Smt. Neelam Gupta, MemberHONABLE MR. D.R.Arora, PRESIDENT ,