Order by:

Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President

1.       The complainant  has filed the instant complaint under section 35 of  the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 on the allegations that Opposite Party constituted under Companies Act under the name and style M/s Libra Auto and General Finance Ltd. The Opposite Party is doing the business of general finance and accepted the deposit from the general public and further advance the same to public on interest. The Opposite Party agreed to pay interest @ 12 % per annum on amount advanced to company by complainant and also agreed to return the amount on demand along with interest. At the assurance of the Opposite Party the complainant has deposited Rs.5,04,930/- as per detail given below:-

          From the advancement of said amount, the Opposite Party has not paid anything to complainant. The complainant approached the Opposite Party and to pay the above said amount, but to no effect. Due to the aforesaid illegal and unwarranted acts of the Opposite Party, the complainant has suffered huge mental tension and agony. The Opposite Party was asked many a times to admit the rightful claim, but they have refused to do so. Hence this complaint. Vide instant complaint complainant has sought the following relief.

a)       Opposite Party may be directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,04,930/- along with interest thereon @ 12% per annum from the date of deposit of the amount till realization of entire amount.

b)      To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension, harassment and agony to the complainant.

c)       And any other relief which this Commission may deem fit and proper may be granted to the complainant in the interest of justice and equity.

2.       Opposite Party appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply and taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the present complaint is not maintainable before this Commission as many complicated question of law and facts are involved in the present case and the same cannot be decided in summary way. The complaint does not disclose any cause of action against the Opposite Party. The complainant has concealed the material facts from this Commission and he has misstated the facts before this Commission. The real facts are that one Kulwant Singh S/o Kashmir Singh, resident of Village Jhanda Bagha, Tehsil Zira, District Ferozepur has got one Truck TATA LPS 4018 bearing registration no.PB-05-AB-8154 financed from M/s Tata Motors Finance Ltd to the tune of Rs.18,04,742/-, which was repayable along with interest. The Opposite Party is the service provider and franchise of M/s Tata Motors Finance Ltd. The complainant is the attorney of said Kulwant Singh, whereas Naresh Kumar s/o Satpal, r/o Zira Road, Kot Ise Khan stood guarantor in the said loan. After adding the interest and other charges, total amount of Rs.23,12,964/- were due to the said M/s Tata Motor Finance Ltd, which was payable in 47 installment commencing from 2^nd January, 2017. Further alleges that the Opposite Party being a franschisee and service provider of M/s Tata Motor Finance Ltd., all the payment of installment were routed through the Opposite Party. The complainant being the attorney of said borrower Kulwant Singh has been dealing with the Opposite Party in connection with the finance of the said Truck and has been depositing the amount in the account of said Kulwant Singh. Even to installments were also paid by the complainant from his bank account. Kulwant Singh borrower and the complainant did not adhere to the financial discipline and fell in arrears of installments, which were not paid in spite of repeated requests. Ultimately, the Opposite Party was constrained to impound the vehicle on 23.04.2018 and take the possession of the same. In the month of July, 2018 the complainant along with Kulwant Singh approached the Opposite Party and settled the account on 26.07.2018 and the Opposite Party agreed to receive a sum of Rs.13,50,000/- towards full and final settlement. The complainant and Kulwant Singh agreed to pay the amount within six months. The Opposite Party thereafter released the vehicle vide order dated 26.07.2018 and the same was duly received by the complainant and Kulwant Singh jointly. The complainant and Kulwant Singh had paid a sum of Rs.12,50,930/- upto 01.11.2018. Out of the above said amount, the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.5,04,930/-, whereas, Kulwant Singh had paid Rs.7,46,000/-. The Complainant and Kulwant Singh failed to pay the balance amount of Rs.99,070/- inspite of repeated requests reminder. The Opposite Party has already filed complaint u/s 138 of Negotiable Act against said Kulwant Singh. The said complaint is pending in the court of Ms.Shewata Dass, JMIC, Ludhiana. The amount which has been alleged by the complainant that he has deposited the amount on interest with the Opposite Party, is the amount which he has paid on behalf of Kulwant Singh being his attorney out of the amount of Rs.12,50,930/- settled by them on 26.07.2018. This act is clear from the receipt produced by the complainant along with the complaint. Moreover, the Opposite Party is dealing in business of general and motor finance and is duly registered with RBI and is holding ‘B’ category license from RBI. As per the terms of the said license, the Opposite Party cannot accept any deposit from any person. The complainant has filed the present complaint without disclosing the entire facts of the case. The complainant had earlier served a legal notice dated 06.03.2019, through his counsel and the said notice was duly replied by the Opposite Party vide registered reply dated 10.05.2019. The complainant even did not disclose about his earlier notice and the reply of the Opposite Party in his second notice dated 06.04.2021. Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint is made.

3.       In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A along with copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and rejoinder as Ex.C7.

4.       To rebut the evidence of complainant, ld. counsel for the opposite party has tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh.Bhupinder Kumar, Manager/Authorized Person of Libra Auto and General Finance Ltd. Ex.OP1 along with copies of documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP7.

5.       During the course of arguments both the parties ld. counsel for the complainant as well as ld. counsel for the opposite party have mainly reiterated the same facts as narrated in the complaint as well as written reply respectively. Ld. counsel for the complainant contended that Opposite Party  is doing the business of General Finance and accept the deposit from general public and advance the same to public on interest. The Opposite Party agreed to pay interest @ 12% per annum on amount advanced to the company by complainant and also agreed to return the amount on demand alongwith interest. At the assurance of the Opposite Party complainant had deposited Rs.5,04,930/- i.e. Rs.1,95,000/- vide receipt no.565 dated 28.07.2018, Rs.1,99,000/- vide receipt no.867 dated 25.09.2018 and Rs.1,10,030/- vide receipt no.1084 dated 31.10.2018. From the advancement of said amount, the Opposite Party has not paid anything to complainant.

6.       Ld. counsel for the Opposite Party repelled the contention of ld.counsel for the complainant on the ground that one Kulwant Singh S/o Kashmir Singh, resident of Village Jhanda Bagha, Tehsil Zira, District Ferozepur has got one Truck TATA LPS 4018 bearing registration no.PB-05-AB-8154 financed from M/s Tata Motors Finance Ltd to the tune of Rs.18,04,742/-, which was repayable along with interest. The Opposite Party is the service provider and franchise of M/s Tata Motors Finance Ltd. The complainant is the attorney of said Kulwant Singh, whereas Naresh Kumar s/o Satpal, r/o Zira Road, Kot Ise Khan stood guarantor in the said loan. After adding the interest and other charges, total amount of Rs.23,12,964/- were due to the said M/s Tata Motor Finance Ltd, which was payable in 47 installments commencing from 2^nd January, 2017. The complainant being the attorney of said borrower Kulwant Singh has been dealing with the Opposite Party in connection with the finance of the said Truck and has been depositing the amount in the account of said Kulwant Singh. Even to installments were also paid by the complainant from his bank account. Kulwant Singh borrower and the complainant did not adhere to the financial discipline and fell in arrears of installments, which were not paid in spite of repeated requests. Ultimately, the Opposite Party was constrained to impound the vehicle on 23.04.2018 and take the possession of the same. In the month of July, 2018 the complainant along with Kulwant Singh approached the Opposite Party and settled the account on 26.07.2018 and the Opposite Party agreed to receive a sum of Rs.13,50,000/- towards full and final settlement. The complainant and Kulwant Singh agreed to pay the amount within six months. The Opposite Party thereafter released the vehicle vide order dated 26.07.2018 and the same was duly received by the complainant and Kulwant Singh jointly. The complainant and Kulwant Singh had paid a sum of Rs.12,50,930/- upto 01.11.2018. Out of the above said amount, the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.5,04,930/-, whereas, Kulwant Singh had paid Rs.7,46,000/-. The Complainant and Kulwant Singh failed to pay the balance amount of Rs.99,070/- inspite of repeated requests reminder. The Opposite Party has already filed complaint u/s 138 of Negotiable Act against said Kulwant Singh. The said complaint is pending in the court of Ms.Shewata Dass, JMIC, Ludhiana. To prove his case, Opposite Party has placed on record affidavit of Sh.Bhupinder Kumar, Manager Ex.OP1, Special Power of Attorney, vide which Sh.Kulwant Singh authorized the complainant as attorney with regard to the his vehicle Tata LPs 4018 bearing registration no.PB05AB8154 Ex.OP2. Further they placed on record copy of Case filed by them against the complainant and Kulwant Singh in the Court of Illaqa Magistrate, Ludhiana under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in lieu of the dishonoured cheque of Rs.99,070/- Ex.OP4. Moreover perusal of reply to the legal notice of complainant also shows that complainant and Kulwant Singh had to pay Rs.13,50,000/- towards full and final settlement of account. Out of which complainant and Kulwant Singh paid only 12,50,930/- till 01.11.2018 and an amount of Rs.99,070/- is due against complainant and said Kulwant Singh. Perusal of the reply further shows that out of Rs.12,50,930/- complainant had paid Rs.5,04,930/- and Kulwant Singh had paid Rs.7,46,000/-. From this, it is evident that the amount of Rs.5,04,930/- which the complainant alleged that he had paid the said amount to Opposite Party on interest basis, in actual is the amount which was to pay by him with regard to settlement of account of Kulwant Singh. Moreover, the complainant has failed to prove on record that he paid the said amount of Rs.5,04,930/- on interest basis to opposite party. We are of the view that complainant has failed to prove his case by any cogent and convenience evidence on record.

7.       Keeping in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find no force in the present complaint and same stands dismissed. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room after compliance.

8.       Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.

          This complaint could not be decided within the prescribed period because the State Government has not appointed any of the Whole Time Members in this Commission for about 3 years i.e. w.e.f. 15.09.2018 till 27.08.2021 as well as due to pandemic of COVID-19.

Announced in Open Commission.