Punjab

StateCommission

A/11/1665

Manjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Shri Ram Transport Finance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

J.S.Jaidka

24 Feb 2015

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION, PUNJAB, SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

 

First Appeal No.1665 of 2011

                                                Date of Institution:  16.11.2011.

                                                Date of Decision:    24.02.2015.

 

Manjit Singh son of Shri Mukhtiar Singh, resident of Village Maksudra, Post Office Khas, Tehsil Payal, District Ludhiana.

                                                     …..Appellant/complainant.

Versus

 

1.      M/s Shri Ram Transport Finance Company Limited through its         Director/Auth. Signatory, 2813, Ranjeet Tower, Ist Floor,      Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana.

2.      The Director, Administrative Office, Shri Ram Transport Finance Company Limited, Shri Ram House, 7 Local Shopping Centre, Sector C, Pocket 6 & 7, opposite D.P.S. Vasant Kunj,    New  Delhi-110070.

                                                     ….Respondents/opposite parties

 

First Appeal against order dated 12.10.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana.

Quorum:-

     Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

             Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member.     

 

Present:-

     For the appellant                   :     None

For respondents                    :     Sh. G.S. Sandhu, Advocate

     . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

J. S. KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

                   The appellant (the complainant in the complaint) has directed this appeal against the respondents in this appeal (the opposite parties in the complaint), questioning the validity of order dated 12.10.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Ludhiana (in short, “the District Forum”), relegating the parties to approach Civil Court for Redressal of their grievances. The instant appeal has been preferred against the same by the complainant now appellant.

2.           The complainant Manjit Singh has filed the complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short "Act") against the OPs on the averments that he has been earning his livelihood from transportation of goods through vehicle no.HR-38-B-1705. That OPs have been doing the business of finance throughout the country. OP no.1 has been doing the business of finance at Ludhiana and earlier its office was located at Feroze Gandhi Market Ludhiana. That OP no.2 has administrative control over OP no.1. The complainant was allowed a hire purchase loan of Rs.1,50,000/- against vehicle no.HR-38-B-1705 by OP no.1 for consideration paid through cheque, hence complainant is the consumer of the OPs. That the OPs at the time of granting the above hire purchase loan took several signatures of complainant on blank documents and on printed papers as well without making the complainant to understand their nature. OP no.1 sent letter dated 03.11.2008, being first notice for default in payment of installment to complainant for hire purchase loan of vehicle no. HR-38-B-1705 financed through UTI Bank under agreement no.TSLLUDNA 0000400 and through this notice raised the demand of Rs.14,760/-. The complainant made several payments to OP no.1 on 23.01.2009, 05.05.2009, 28.07.2009, 21.01.2010, 27.02.2010 and 29.05.2010 and so on. That complainant made payment of Rs.4,12,375/- through various receipts to the OPs, which are available with him. That complainant took only the loan of Rs.1,50,000/- against the above vehicle, as hire purchase loan. That complainant requested OP no.1 to supply the details of amounts recovered from him and balance payable amount, if any, but the complainant was intimated that balance dues are in lacs and OPs flatly refused to supply the details of the amounts deposited by the complainant and balance amount, if any. That complainant is still ready to make re-payment of the outstanding amount, if he is made to know about it by the OPs. The complainant has, thus, filed the complaint directing the OPs not to impound the vehicle no.HR-38-B-1705 till the final disposal of the complaint and to release all the documents collected from the complainant at the time of advancing the loan to him and to make payment of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and Rs.11,000/- as costs of litigation to him.
3.           Upon notice, the OPs appeared and filed the written reply contesting the complaint of the complainant vehemently. It was averred in the preliminary objections by the OPs that complaint is not maintainable against them. That complainant is not entitled to file the complaint, as he is not their consumer. That complaint is barred because the transactions are of commercial nature and he is not the consumer of the OPs, as the business of transport business is commercial in nature.  That there is arbitration clause in loan agreement, which also makes this complaint not maintainable before the Consumer Fora. The complaint was resisted even on merits by the OPs. It was admitted that loan was advanced to complainant for hire purchase loan amount against the above vehicle. It was further pleaded that complainant took loan of Rs.1,92,660/-, vide agreement dated 23.06.2003 and not of Rs.1,50,000/- as pleaded by him. That complainant took another loan of Rs.1,74,076/-, vide agreement dated 04.05.2006 and complainant again took loan of Rs.3,65,150/-, vide agreement dated 07.08.2008 and lastly complainant took a loan of Rs.3,65,150/-, vide agreement dated 30.11.2009 and complainant paid only Rs.29,596/- and he has been in arrears of remaining amount. It was denied that complainant took loan amount of Rs.1,50,000/- only from the OPs for hire purchase for above vehicle. OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.           The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA-1 along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-35 and closed the evidence. As against it, the OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Ram Krishan Law officer of OPs Ex.RW1/A along with documents Ex.R-1 to R-13 and closed the evidence. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum Ludhiana dismissed the complaint of the complainant by relegating the parties to Civil Court for the redressal of their grievances. Dissatisfied with the order of District Forum Ludhiana, the complainant now appellant has preferred this appeal against the same.
5.           We have heard learned counsel for the respondents, as none appeared for appellant in this appeal at the time of arguments and have also examined the record of the case. Ex.C-1 is the document tendered by the complainant regarding receipt of Rs.8470/- issued by the OPs company. Ex.C-2 is also with regard to receipt of Rs.8470/- from the complainant by the OPs. Similarly, the receipt Ex.C-4 to C-7 regarding deposit of amount, are on the record. Ex.C-8 to C-27 are the other receipts issued by the OPs to the complainant regarding deposit of the amount. Ex.C-29 is the notice sent by the complainant to the OPs, Ex.C-30 is the postal receipt. Ex.C-31 is another notice and Ex.C-32 is the postal receipt. Ex.C-33 is the notice of default in payment of installments by hirer/borrower. Ex.C-34 is the statement regarding deposit of balance of the account. Ex.C-35 is the hire purchase-cum-guarantee agreement on the record between the parties.
6.           The OPs relied upon hire-purchase-cum-guarantee agreement Ex.R-1, as executed between the parties to the effect that hire purchase lender has the option to purchase the motor vehicle in case of default in making the payments. Ex.R-2 is the statement of account showing the balance amount of Rs.2,12,271/- recoverable from complainant. Ex.R-3 is the receipt, Ex.R-4 is the loan-cum-hypothecation agreement executed between the parties. Ex.R-5 is the statement of account. Ex.R-6 and R-7 are the receipts on the record.
7.           We find from perusal of above referred documents that parties are in disagreement over this point, as to whether the complainant took loan of Rs.1,50,000/- only or not. The OPs further pleaded that complainant also executed other documents in their favour and also took other loans from them from time to time. In the circumstances of the case, we are of this view that the dispute between the parties is primarily a case of settlement of accounts. The dispute is purely regarding settlement of accounts and not of any deficiency in service. Only Civil Court is competent to determine this matter, as to whether any amount is due from complainant in favour of OPs or no amount is due from complainant to the OPs. We are unable to come to the definite conclusion from perusal of Ex.R-2 to Ex.R-7 on the record, as to how many loan agreements were actually executed between the parties or not and if so, to which of them the above documents pertained.
8.           We find that the OPs plea that they sanctioned the successive of four loans against the vehicle in question. That complainant has been making payment of the installments irregularly. On the other hand, the stand of the complainant is that the OPs were in dominating position and the record was in their possession and they could doctor it.  So, we are of the view that complex facts are involved in this case and case is purely of settlement of accounts between the parties. The dispute cannot be decided in a summary manner by us. The reliance of appellant on law laid down by the National Commission in case "Parmod Grover & ors.  Versus  Manvinder Kaur (Dr.) & Ors." 2007(1) CPC-606, is clearly on different facts, as that was a case of medical negligence, whereas the instant case is a pure case of settlement of accounts between the parties. Consequently, we find that the District Forum Ludhiana has appropriately held that parties are at liberty to approach the Civil Court for the redressal of their grievances. We do not find any illegality or material infirmity in the order of the District Forum Ludhiana, because this is a pure case of settlement of accounts between the parties, which can be decided by the Civil Court on the basis of elaborate evidence involving cross-examination, re-examination of witnesses and even the statement of expert witnesses, if need be. We do not find any ground to take a different view from the view of District Forum in the order under challenge in this appeal.
9.           As a result of our above discussions, there is no merits in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed by confirming the order of District Forum dated 12.10.2011.
10.           Arguments in this appeal were heard on 23.02.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.       
11.           The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                         PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                                                  (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA)

                                                                              MEMBER

February 24, 2015.                                                             

(MM)