Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/435

Kamal Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Shriram City union Finance Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

G.S.Marya Adv.

26 Oct 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No.435 of 17.07.2015

Date of Decision            :   26.10.2015

 

Kamal Kumar son of Shri Kishori Lal, resident of House NO.379/1, Saroop Nagar, Salem Tabri, Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

Versus

1.M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited, Office No.2, Floor No.2, Novelty Plaza, Bhai Bala Chowk, Opp. Park Plaza, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana. through its Manager.

 

2.M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited, Zonal Office No.12, Ramasamy Street, T.Nagar, Behind Fathima Jewellery, Chennai-600017 through its Zonal Manager.                                                                                                                                                                                                           …Opposite parties 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION  ACT,1986.

 

QUORUM:

 

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH.SAT PAUL GARG, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

 

For complainant            :           Sh.G.S.Maurya, Advocate

For OP1 and OP2                    :           Sh.K.M.Sethi, Advocate

                                     

 

PER G.K DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                Sh.Kamal Kumar filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) against the OPs, by alleging that Hero Splendor Plus motor cycle bearing registration No.PB-10-DW-1395 was got financed by him from Ops in October, 2012 after paying Rs.17,300/- as down payment. The financed amount was to be paid in 24 equal monthly installments of Rs.1747/-. At the time of sanctioning of loan several blank signed cheques were obtained from the complainant as security. Two installments were deducted from the account of complainant through ECS system but lateron, intimation was received by the complainant that system of ECS transaction could not succeed. The complainant cleared the entire loan amount on 20.10.2014 and thereafter, called upon the Ops to issue NOC. However, officials of Ops refused to issue NOC by wrongly claiming that some amount is due from the complainant.

2.                Ops instead of filing the written statement, filed an application for dismissal of complaint by claiming that complainant is not a consumer. Besides, it is pleaded that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops. As per agreement, complainant was bound to make the payment through ECS, but his ECS were dishonoured, due to which, payments were made through cash. It is claimed that due to technical glitch, his NOC could not be issued, qua which, intimation was given to the complainant. Complainant was informed about documentation but he delayed the matter. Thereafter, Ops procured the NOC in favour of complainant. Ops called upon the complainant to receive NOC along with Form No.35 many times, but he did not bother to collect the same.

3.                In reply to the application, complainant has claimed that he is entitled for compensation because of causing unnecessary harassment and humiliation at the hands of Ops. It is also claimed that before filing the present complaint, legal notice dated 15.6.2015 was served up on the Ops calling upon them to issue NOC and to return back the blank signed cheques. Despite that notice, Ops failed to do the needful, which forced the complainant to file the present complaint. Each and every other averment of application denied.

4.                On 19.10.2015, Sh.Gurdeep Singh, Law Officer of OP1 and OP2 along with counsel Sh.K.M.Sethi, Advocate suffered statement that NOC along with Form No.35 has been handed over to counsel for complainant in the Forum. Through that statement of date 19.10.2015, it was reported that Ops have been calling upon the complainant to receive the documents on earlier occasion also and that is why compensation should not be awarded. Further it was reported through that recorded statement that blank signed cheques and blank signed papers of complainant are not available with Ops because they were not handed over by complainant to Ops. Even through that recorded statement of law officer and counsel for Ops, they claimed that in case of need by complainant, fresh renewed NOC along with Form No.35 again will be given to complainant, so that deletion of hypothecation endorsement from RC may take place. On that date of 19.10.2015, Sh.G.S.Mourya, Advocate counsel for complainant suffered statement qua receipt of No Objection Letter dated 2.9.2015 and Form NO.35 in original from Sh.K.M.Sethi, Advocate. Sh.G.S.Mourya, Advocate suffered statement that dispute remains only in respect of the payable compensation amount, if to be awarded by this Forum. In view of those recorded statements of 19.10.2015, it is obvious that grievance of complainant qua obtaining of NOC and return of blank signed cheques and papers stands readdressed. Now dispute only remains as to whether any compensation amount should be awarded to the complainant or not?

5.                Counsel for Ops has placed relied on law laid down in case titled as K.K.Foams Industries and another vs. Punjab Financial Corporation and another-2004(1)CPJ-41(Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh) for arguing that complainant is not a consumer because relationship between the complainant and Ops is that of borrower and debtor. After going through para no.3 of the reported case, it is made out that complainant failed to pay the balance outstanding amount until 31.3.2002 and before that an application for awarding of penal interest was filed. The complainant paid amount on 4.1.2002 and 31.1.2002 and amount of Rs.11,042/- was outstanding at the time when return of document was sought by the complainant. In view of the outstanding loan amount, relationship of debtor and borrower  existed at the time of filing of the complaint is essence of pith or substance of the reported case.  However in this case before us, that relationship no longer exists after return of the entire loan amount by the complainant on 20.10.2014. In view of that distinction, benefit of ratio of above cited case not available to the Ops.

6.                Legal notice dated 15.6.2015 was served by complainant on Ops through registered post qua which postal receipts are produced on record. Through that notice, complainant called upon the Ops to issue NOC regarding the loan account in question. This complaint was filed on 17.7.2015, but no objection letter dated 2.9.2015 only was handed over by the counsel for Ops along with their law officer to counsel for complainant on 19.10.2015. As complainant after payment of loan amount was entitled for issue of NOC, so that deletion of hypothecation endorsement from the registration certificate of vehicle can be obtained by him,  but despite that NOC dated 2.9.2015 with Form No.35 was handed over to complainant on 19.10.2015 only and as such, deficiency in service on the part of Ops is there. Even if some deficiency in service on the part of Ops is there but despite that they before filing the written statement, itself have handed over the demanded documents to complainant and as such, it is fit and appropriate to award minimum amount of compensation along with costs of litigation. As dispute regarding compensation amount alone remains and as such, there was no need for calling upon the parties to produce evidence because factual position qua delay in handing over NOC can be proved from the available material on record itself.

7.                Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, the present complaint stands disposed off as infructuous qua obtaining of no objection certificate and blank signed papers/cheques. However, complainant had to file complaint and even issue legal notice before obtaining requisite documents and as such in view of harassment of complainant, compensation of Rs.2000/- and litigation costs of Rs.2000/- more allowed in favour of complainant and against the Ops. Liability of Ops to pay the amount of compensation and costs will be joint and several. Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Sat Paul Garg)                            (G.K.Dhir)

                                 Member                                     President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:26.10.2015

Gurpreet Sharma.