BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.237 of 2017

Date of Instt. 18.07.2017

Date of Decision: 13.06.2018

Yatin Sharma aged about 26 years son of Shri Harkamal Sharma, resident of H. No.252, Guru Nanak Nagar, Rama Mandi, Jalandhar through its authorized representative Harkamal Sharma.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. M/s Deepak Deposit and Advances Limited, S. N. 53, Shastri Nagar, Nakodar Road, Jalandhar through its Managing Director Tiken Kumar.

2. Tiken Kumar, Managing Director M/s Deepak Deposit and Advances Limited, S. N. 53, Shastri Nagar, Nakodar Road, Jalandhar.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)

Smt. Harvimal Dogra (Member)

Present: Sh. Harkamal Sharma, Authorized Representative of the Complainant.

Sh. Rahul Sharma, Adv Counsel for the OP No.1 and 2.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. This complaint is filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that the complaint is being filed by the complainant through his authorized representative Harkamal Sharma, who is well conversant with the facts of the present complaint being the father of the complainant Yatin Sharma.

2. The complainant had purchased motorcycle bearing No.PB-08-CD-4216 and got financed the same from the OPs. The complainant has cleared the whole loan amount of the OPs on 30.06.2016 and accordingly, OPs have also issued a receipt bearing No.2338/1617 dated 30.06.2016, showing therein zero balance. On 30.06.2017, the complainant requested the OPs to issue NOC regarding above said motorcycle, vide letter dated 30.06.2017, but in response to aforesaid letter, the OP gave a reply dated 06.07.2017, whereby giving a surprising information that some amount is still due towards the complainant. The complainant approached the office of the OP with request to issue NOC, but the OP refused to issue the NOC, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP, which gave a cause of action to file the present complaint with the prayer that the OP be directed to issue NOC along with documents of the vehicle in question and further OPs be directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant.

3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly, both the OPs appeared through their counsel and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complainant has filed the instant complaint with malafide intention to drag the OP in a frivolous litigation and further averred that the complainant has got no cause of action against the OP. The complainant Yatin Sharma has taken a finance/loan of Rs.31,500/- and on which the hire purchase charges agreed to be paid a sum of Rs.15,120/-, in total of Rs.46,620/- returnable in 24 installments as per hire purchase agreement. The said loan was granted in the year 2013 and after 24 months, the last installment was scheduled to be paid on 05.08.2015. The complainant failed to pay the installments as per time mentioned in the hire purchase agreement as such, the OP company entitled to overdue interest on the outstanding late paid installments, which amounts of Rs.10,343/- as still lying unpaid in the account of the complainant on 30.06.2016. The OP has been demanding Rs.10,343/- as per the terms and conditions of the hire purchase agreement, but the complainant refused to pay the said outstanding amount and issued a notice dated 30.06.2017 and its reply was given by the OP on 06.07.2017, whereby disclosing all the facts and figures and further alleged that the instant complaint is not filed by the competent person. On merits, the authority letter given by the complainant to his father Harkamal Sharma is contested by the OP as not a legal one and further admitted that the motorcycle was got financed by the OP in the year 2013, but the complainant failed to follow the terms and conditions of the agreement and even failed to pay the installments as per schedule. It is further submitted that the complainant had paid the last installment on 30.06.2016, however, the last installment was as per hire purchase agreement due on 05.08.2015. The zero balance shown in the receipt bearing No.2338/1617 dated 30.06.2016, is with regard to the ledger balance of the installments due. It is worth mentioning that on the face of said receipt, it has been clearly mentioned that “this receipt is not valid for full and final settlement”. As such, the company is entitled to recover the outstanding balance amount on account of late charges, visiting charges and other miscellaneous charges. The other averments as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.

4. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the Authorized Representative of the complainant Harkamal Sharma tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.CA along with some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-9 and closed the evidence.

5. Similarly, counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OPA along with some documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-5 and closed the evidence.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone scanned the file very minutely.

7. From the very outset, it is not disputed that the complainant got financed his motorcycle bearing No.PB-08-CD-4216 from the OPs and got a loan of Rs.31,500/- including charges of hire purchase of Rs.15,120/- in total Rs.46,620/- and it is also not in dispute that the said amount was agreed to be paid in 24 installments as per hire purchase agreement.

8. The dispute arose in this case only, when the OP issued a receipt dated 30.06.2016 Ex.C-2, whereby the complainant alleged that he deposited the remaining due installment amount of Rs.46,70/- and thereby the loan account of the complainant was cleared and accordingly, the OP issued the said receipt showing total balance zero and ledger account balance zero, but despite issuing that receipt, the OP failed to issue NOC as well as failed to return the document of the said motorcycle and accordingly, necessity arose to give a notice Ex.C-9 to the OP and in reply to that notice, OP sent a reply, which is produced on the file by the OP as Ex.R-4, whereby OP alleged that a sum of Rs.10,343/- is still due on 30.06.2016 on account of late payment made by the complainant and demanded the said amount prior to issue NOC and releasing the document and this issue is contested by the complainant through this complaint.

9. First of all, the OP could not able to give plausible reply of the receipt dated 30.06.2016, whereby declared that there is zero balance in the loan account of the complainant, later on the OP took a plea that the zero balance shown in the receipt dated 30.06.2016, is in the regard to the ledger balance of the installment schedule, this reply of the OP is not satisfactory and acceptable because if we go through the first receipt issued by the OP at the time of payment of first installment, the same is Ex.C-3, admittedly, the total loan amount calculated by the OP in its written statement is Rs.46,620/- and through receipt Ex.C-3 dated 04.09.2013, the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.1950/- and balance shown in the said receipt is Rs.44,670/- out of the total amount Rs.46,620/- and if we see the last receipt dated 30.06.2016 in the light of the receipt Ex.C-3, then we say without any hesitation that the total balance shown zero and ledger account shown zero in the receipt dated 30.06.2016 itself establish that there is nothing due against the OP in the loan account of the motorcycle, this factor is further corroborated with the statement of account produced on the file by the OP itself, which is Ex.R-2 and on the second page of that document, the total loan amount has been shown Rs.46,620/- and paid amount has been shown Rs.46,620/-, it means there is zero balance in the loan account of the complainant and the due amount demanded by the OP i.e. Rs.10,343/- could not be justified by the OP, where from it comes when the receipt for zero balance has been already issued. So, with these observations, we are of the opinion that the OP has illegally and wrongfully demanding due amount of Rs.10,343/-, whereas nothing is due towards the complainant and accordingly, we find that the complainant is entitled for relief as claimed.

10. In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and OPs are directed to issue NOC of the loan obtained by the complainant for purchase of the motorcycle along with documents of the said motorcycle and further OPs are directed to pay compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant, to the tune of Rs.8000/-. The aforesaid compensation amount be paid within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order, failing which the complainant will entitle to get interest thereon @ 12% per annum from the date of filing complaint, till realization. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

11. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated Harvimal Dogra Karnail Singh

13.06.2018 Member President