New Complaint No.205 of 2023.
Date of Institution:26.10.2023.
Old Complaint No:173 of 2018.
Date of Institution: 05.04.2018.
Date of order:01.02.2024.
Vikas Kumar Bhanoot Son of Sh. Vijay Kumar Bhanoot, resident of House No.133, Mohalla Chota Bazar, Ward No. 9, Qadian, Tehsil Batala District Gurdaspur.
…............Complainant.
VERSUS
1. M/s. Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd., Office No. 7, 3rd Floor, City Square Building, Near Kesar Petrol Pump, EH 197, Civil Lines, Jalandhar.
2. M/s. Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd., Corporate Office at No. 27-A, Developed Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600032, through its authorized signatory.
….Opposite parties.
Complaint u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act.
Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Rajiv Vohra, Advocate.
For the Opposite Parties: Sh.Jatinder Singh Gill, Advocate.
Quorum: Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President, Sh.Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.
ORDER
Lalit Mohan Dogra, President.
Vikas Kumar, Complainant (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against M/s. Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd. Etc. (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties).
2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the complainant took a loan of Rs.1,35,000/- on dated 31.08.2013 against the hypothecation of Vehicle No. PB-06-V-2965 (Alfa Loading) after adding finance charges to Rs.39,690/-. It is pleaded that the total loan amount became Rs.1,74,690/- which was to be paid in installments till 07.07.2016. For the recovery of loan amount, the opposite party No. 1 took 38 Blank Cheques with signatures from the complainant. The opposite party No. 1 also agreed to pay insurance amount of the said vehicle Rs.5,000/- per year for three years total amount Rs.15,000/-. It is further pleaded that the opposite party No. 1 recovered from the complainant Rs.1,72,401/- till 27.05.2016 and the opposite party No. 1 paid only one installment of insurance of the said vehicle i.e. Rs.5,000/- and remaining Rs.10,000/- are outstanding from the opposite party No.1. Taking this amount into account the complainant has paid more than the recoverable amount from him. It is further pleaded that the complainant requested the opposite party No. 1 to deliver him NOC of the loan and return unutilized cheques and excess amount recovered, but the opposite party No. 1 is not doing the same and wants to harass the complainant to compel him to give more undue money, which is not proper on their part and it is unfair trade practice and against the law. It is further pleaded that thereafter the complainant issued legal notice dated 12.12.2017 to the opposite party No. 1 calling upon them to deliver the complainant NOC of the loan and return unutilized cheques and excess amount recovered by the opposite party No. 1, within 15 days from the receipt of this Legal Notice, but the opposite party No. 1 did not give any reply to the same despite due acknowledgment. Rather the opposite party No. 2 issued another letter dated 15.01.2018 to the guarantor. It is further pleaded that the complainant is being harassed by the illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties, due to which they are liable to pay the compensation to the complainant. Due to this illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties the complainant has suffered great loss and also suffered mental agony, Physical harassment and inconvenience. So, there is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and prayed that necessary directions may kindly be issued to the opposite parties to deliver the complainant NOC of the loan and return unutilized cheques and excess amount recovered by the opposite party No. 1 and the complainant is also claiming Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses and Rs.20,000/- for mental harassment and the complainant may also be granted any other relief which he may be found entitled to.
3. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint and filing their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the answering opposite parties denied all the allegations and averments under the complaint as false, baseless and misleading in material particulars those that are specifically admitted herein and puts the complainant to strict proof the same. The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts, as the complainant has approached this Hon’ble Commission with soiled hands. It is pleaded that the complaint is abuse of the process of law as the complainant has misused the provisions of law by filing such a false complaint. The complainant is legally bound to pay compensatory costs to the answering opposite parties, for unnecessarily dragging the answering opposite parties into an unwanted litigation under section 35 A of CPC. It is further pleaded that this Ld. Commission has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint and the complainant has not been stamped properly. The jurisdiction of this Ld. Commission is barred to the complainant. The vehicle in question is used for commercial purpose only as such the present complaint is not maintainable before this Ld. Commission. It is further pleaded that the complainant took loan of Rs.1,35,000/- on dated 31.03.2018 after adding Rs.39,690/- total loan amount of Rs.1,74,690/-. That was to be paid in 35 monthly installments and the monthly installments payable by him is Rs.5,491/- for first 20 installments and Rs.4,991/- for remaining 15 installments. It is further pleaded that the first installment commenced on dated 31.08.2013 and repayment schedule would end on dated 07.07.2016 as by addition of delayed payment charges, additional finance interest, penalties and cheque bounce charges amount become Rs.2,93,455/- and the complainant paid Rs.2,70,383/-. Now total amount of Rs.23,072/- are due towards the complainant till dated 07.07.2016. It is further pleaded that the levy of additional interest as per the terms of agreement as undertaken by the complainant. It is settled proposition of law by Hon'ble Apex Court's that Court's cannot rewrite the terms of the contract.
On merits, the opposite parties have reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. In the end, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of Vikas Kumar Bhanoot, (Complainant) as Ex.CW-1/A alongwith other documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6.
5. Learned Counsel for the opposite parties have tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Deepak Sharma, (Location Manager, Employee No. 17966, Hinduja Leyland Finance, Jalandhar) as Ex.OPW-1/A alongwith other documents as Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-3 alongwith reply.
6. Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.
7. Written arguments not filed by both the parties.
8. Counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant had obtained loan of Rs.1,35,000/- on 31.08.2013 against hypothecation of vehicle No.PB-06V-2965 after addition of finance charges Rs.39,690/- total amount was Rs.1,74,690/- to be repaid in installments. It is further argued that opposite parties had obtained 38 blank signed cheques from the complainant. It is further argued that opposite party No.1 has recovered Rs.1,72,401/- till 27.05.2016 and has paid only one installment of insurance of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.10,000/- is outstanding from the opposite party No.1. The complainant has requested the opposite parties to deliver NOC and return the unutilized cheques and excess amount but the opposite parties have refused to do so which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
9. On the other hand counsel for the opposite parties has argued that this Commission has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint. It is further argued that the loan installments commenced on 31.08.2013 and was to end on 07.07.2016 and by addition of delayed payment charges, addition of finance interest, penalties and cheque bounce charges the amount become Rs.2,93,455/- and since the complainant has paid Rs.2,70,383/- and at present Rs.23072/- is still recoverable from the complainant and as such there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and complaint is liable to be dismissed.
10. We have heard the Ld. counsels for the parties and gone through the record.
11. Perusal of file shows that the present complaint has been filed Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and as per Section 12 (11), the jurisdiction lines are as under:-
"11. Jurisdiction of the District Forum.-(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed 1(does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs).
(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction,-
(a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or 2(carries on business or has a branch office or) personally works for gain, or
(b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or 3(carries on business or has a branch office), or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or 4(carry on business or have a branch office), or personally work for gain, as the case may be acquiesce in such institution; or
(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises".
12. The perusal of head note of the complaint shows that opposite party No.1 is having its office at Jalandhar and opposite party No.2 is having its office at Chennai and the loan agreement Ex.OP-1 shows that as per article 22 law of jurisdiction and arbitration in case of dispute the jurisdiction shall be at Chennai. The pleading of the complainant shows that in para No.7 of the complaint the complainant has not explained as to how this Commission is having jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint as no cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Commission.
13. Accordingly, without going into merit of the case, the present complaint is disposed off for want jurisdiction and complainant is ordered to approach the appropriate Commission having jurisdiction.
14. The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.
15. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. File be consigned.
(Lalit Mohan Dogra)
President.
Announced: (B.S.Matharu)
Feb. 01, 2024 Member.
*YP*
