| ORDER | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA C.C. No. 471 of 04-08-2014 Decided on 06-08-2015 Gian Singh S/o Sh.Gurbax Singh aged about 40 years, R/o Nehar Wali Patti, V.P.O. Tallewal, Tehsil Barnala, District Sangrur. …...Complainant Versus M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited having its Branch Office at SCO 16/17, 2nd Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh, through its Manager/Branch Manager/Regional Manager M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited having its registered office at 3rd Floor, Mookambika Complex Lady Desika Road, Mylapore, Chennai through its Managing Director/Chairman/President/GM Kansal Finance Company Barnala Road, Rampura Phul, through its Manager/Partner and Authorised Signatory Sh. Chamkaur Singh
.......Opposite parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Quorum : Sh. M.P.Singh. Pahwa, President Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member Sh. Jarnail Singh, Member Present : For the Complainant : Sh. Ashok Gupta, counsel for complainant. For the opposite party : Sh. J S Kohli, counsel for OPs O R D E R M. P. Singh Pahwa, President This complaint has been filed by Gian Singh, complainant under Section 12 of the consumer Protection Act, 1986 (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited and others (here-in-after referred as “opposite parties'). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the opposite parties carry on financial business and provide loan to consumers on interest for purchase of car etc., It was claimed and assured to the complainant that second loan against same vehicle would not be given and in case the complainant failed to pay the loan, then the vehicle would be forfeited and no further loan is admissible to any defaulter. It is pleaded that opposite parties approached the complainant for financial assistance against vehicle No. PB-11-AX-8451 make General Motors Tavera-P. On assurance of the opposite parties that good services would be provided, the complainant obtained a loan of Rs.1,70,000/- for purchase of second hand Tavera PB-11-AX-8451. The loan was taken on 31-5-2012 and it was repayable in 24 installments of Rs. 10,000/- each. A total sum of Rs. 2,37,387/- was payable in all. The loan was granted by opposite parties No. 1 & 2 through opposite party No. 3. At the time of advancement of loan, the officials of the opposite parties obtained signatures of the complainant on various printed forms, receipts, stamps papers, revenue stamps, cheques and blank papers on the pretext of completing the formalities. It is alleged that loan was paid and receipts of some paid amounts were given by authorized signatories/employees/officials. On receipts some amounts were written by the officials on the back of the receipt form. It is also alleged that Chamkaur Singh used to get excess money and issued the receipts of lesser amount. He was getting benefit of illiteracy of the complainant. The complainant paid a total sum of Rs. 3,15,657/- to the opposite parties upto 16-5-2014 against Rs. 2,37,387/-. An amount of Rs. 78,270/- has been charged by the opposite parties in excess which is refundable to the complainant alongwith interest. It is also alleged that opposite parties failed to issue no due certificate despite repeated requested and demand of the complainant. The opposite parties got issued legal notice to the complainant on 29-5-14 through counsel wherein it is alleged that an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- has been taken as loan by the complainant whereas no loan was taken by the complainant. The version of the opposite parties in the notice is false. Loan of Rs. 1,70,000/-only was taken by the complainant. It is further pleaded that upon inquiry, the complainant came to know that the documents got signed from him in blank have been mis-used by the opposite parties and two loans of Rs. 1,50,000/- and Rs. 1,70,000/- are shown to have been advanced to him whereas complainant did not get any amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- and is not liable to make the alleged payment of loan. On this backdrop of facts, complainant has sought following reliefs :- a) The opposite parties be directed to issue 'No Due Certificate' and refund excess amount of Rs. 78,270/- with interest @ 18% p.a, charged by them. b) The opposite parties be directed to withdraw the notice dated 29-5-14 and not to claim alleged loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- c) The opposite parties be directed to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- d) The opposite parties be directed to supply copy of account statement and to return all the documents in original to the complainant e) Any other additional or alternative relief to which the complainant is found entitled. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing joint written version. In written version, the opposite parties raised legal objections that complainant has no locus standi or cause of action to file the complaint; that complainant does not come within the definition of consumer; that complaint is not maintainable in its present form and complainant is estopped from filing the complaint by his own act and conduct. That the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands rather he has intentionally concealed the true and material facts and complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious. On merits also, the opposite parties controverted all the material averments. However, it is admitted that opposite parties No. 1 & 2 are running financial business and provide loans to the needy people for purchasing the vehicles. It is denied that loan is given only once for one vehicle. It is denied that complainant was told that second loan against the same vehicle would not be given. However, it is admitted that complainant was disclosed that in case of default in repayment of loan amount, the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 would be entitled to repossess the vehicle as per terms and conditions of the loan agreement. As per opposite parties, the complainant approached for financial assistance for purchase of a Tavera Car. All the terms and conditions of the loan agreement were fully explained to the complainant. He agreed to the same and only thereafter the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 agreed to advance loan for purchase of second hand Tavera Car. It is admitted that complainant took loan of Rs. 1,70,000/- on 31-05-2012 and agreed to repay the same alongwith interest charges of Rs. 67,387/- i.e. total amount of Rs. 2,37,387/- in 24 installments and installment was about Rs. 9900/- per month. It is denied that opposite parties No. 1 & 2 had obtained signatures of the complainant on any blank papers, forms, stamp papers or any other blank documents. It is denied that complainant had repaid total loan amount. It is denied that any official of the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 used to receive excess amount from the complainant and used to issue receipt for the lesser amount. As per opposite parties, the complainant has been making payment of installments with the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 for about one year from time to time and deposited a sum of Rs. 2,15,000/- on different dates upto 15-07-2013 including 1,18,000/- on 15-07-2013. Thereafter the complainant did not deposit even a single penny in the aforesaid loan account despite repeated requests by the officials of the opposite parties No. 1 & 2. After adjusting all the amounts paid by the complainant, an amount of Rs. 2,23,895.16 is still due and outstanding against the complainant regarding the said loan amount. It is also added that on 13-07-2013, the complainant again took another loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- from the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 against the same vehicle by executing the fresh loan documents. Since the complainant was making payment of the installments of the previous loan from time to time, the opposite parties No. 1 & 2, as good service gesture, gave another loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the complainant. After taking the loan, the complainant stopped making payment in the loan account of previous loan of Rs. 1,70,000/- and in the loan account of Rs. 1,50,000/-. The complainant hardly deposited a sum of Rs. 55,000/- approximately till date. A sum of Rs. 1,16,546.59 is still due and outstanding against the complainant in the loan account of Rs. 1,50,000/-. The complainant has committed default in both the loan accounts . It is denied that complainant has already deposited Rs. 3,15,657/-. It is reiterated that complainant took two loans of Rs. 1,70,000/- and Rs. 1,50,000/- and is defaulter in both the said loan accounts. As per opposite parties, a sum of Rs. 3,23,895/- is due and outstanding in the old loan account of Rs. 1,70,000/- while Rs. 1,16,546/- is outstanding in the loan account of Rs. 1,50,000/-. After controverting all averments, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint. Both the parties were afforded opportunity to produce evidence. In support of his claim, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavits of Gian Singh (Ex. C-1 & Ex.C-29), photocopy of loan agreement (Ex. C-2), photocopy of letter (Ex. C-3), photocopies of bank deposit receipts (Ex. C-4 to Ex. C-15), photocopies of payment receipts (Ex. C-16 to Ex. C-27) and photocopy of loan agreement (Ex. C-28). In order to rebut this evidence, opposite parties have tendered into evidence affidavit of Harnek Singh dated 28-11-2014 (Ex. OP-1/1), photocopy of power of attorney (Ex. OP-1/2), photocopy of loan cum hypothecation agreement (Ex. OP-1/3) and photocopy of summary of loans for vehicle (Ex. OP-1/4). The opposite parties have also submitted written submissions. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record and written submissions of the opposite parties. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that complainant has availed loan of Rs. 1,70,000/-only. The complainant has alleged that the opposite parties obtained signatures of the complainant on blank papers and documents at the time of advancement of loan. Although the opposite have denied this fact, the documents produced by the opposite parties also support the case of the complainant. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the complainant that the opposite parties have produced copy of agreement as Ex. OP-1/3 to prove that the complainant availed another loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- on 13-7-2013. The stamp paper is dated 1-2-2013. In case the complainant was to avail loan on 13-7-2013, he was not to purchase the stamp paper on 1-2-2013. This fact itself proves that signatures of the complainant was obtained on blank papers. As such, agreement dated 13-7-2013 is forged and fabricated and no relief could be granted to the opposite parties on the basis of this agreement. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that opposite parties No. 1 & 2 are finance company. The opposite parties have tendered into evidence affidavit of Harnek Singh, but there is no document to prove that Harnek Singh was duly authorized. No evidence or minute book showing any resolution in this regard is brought on record. In such circumstances, affidavit of Harnek Singh cannot be considered and is to be ignored. When the affidavit of Harnek Singh stands ignored, there is no evidence in rebuttal to evidence of the complainant. When the evidence of the complainant remains un-rebutted, there is no reason to discard this evidence. Moreover, the complainant has also brought on record copies of bank receipts and other receipts to prove the payment from time to time and as per these receipts, the complainant has already paid due amount of Rs. 3,15,657/- instead of Rs. 2,37,387/-. The complainant is entitled to the refund of excess amount i.e. Rs. 78,270/- alongwith other claimed reliefs. In order to rebut the case of the complainant, the learned counsel for the opposite parties have submitted that complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and has concealed the material facts. The complainant revealed about the loan of Rs. 1,70,000/-. He has not disclosed about the loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- availed on 13-7-2013. The complainant has pleaded that at the time of advancement of loan, the opposite parties obtained his signatures on various printed forms and papers etc. The loan of Rs. 1,70,000/- was availed by the complainant on 31-5-2012 whereas second loan was availed by him on 13-7-13. Even if it is admitted that stamp paper was purchased on 10-2-13, this fact belies the version of the complainant that he put signatures on blank papers on 31-5-12. The agreement dated 13-5-13 bears the signatures of the complainant on each and every page. The complainant was having no reason to put signatures on blank papers and blank documents. The documentary evidence has to prevail upon oral evidence. Therefore, it is proved that complainant availed two loans i.e. 1,70,000/- and Rs. 1,50,000/-. The opposite parties have also placed on record statement of account of complainant which reveals the balance due amount against the complainant. Therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed. We have carefully gone through the record and have considered the rival contentions. The complainant has pleaded that he took loan of Rs. 1,70,000/- which was repayable in 24 installments. The stand of the opposite parties is that subsequently on 13-7-2013, the complainant availed another loan of Rs. 1,50,000/-. The opposite parties have also placed on record copy of agreement dated 13-7-13 (Ex. OP-1/3), which is duly signed by the complainant and his guarantor Balraj Singh. Ofcourse the averment of the complainant is that his signatures were obtained on blank documents and papers on 31-5-2012, when he availed loan but the agreement of the opposite parties Ex. OP-1/3 bears stamp of vendor dated 1-2-2013. This facts proves that papers used for subscribing subsequent agreement dated 13-5-2013 was purchased on 1-2-2013. Therefore, this fact itself belies the version of the complainant that on 31-5-2012, his signatures were obtained on blank forms. Moreover, the complainant was having no reason to put signatures on blank papers 31-5-2012. There is another aspect of matter also. The complainant has brought on record copies of receipts to prove payments. The receipts before the period 13-7-13 are relating to A/c No. 0205310007 and the receipts after 13-7-2-13 are relating to A/c No. 0642219023585. This evidence proves that complaint used to deposit the amount in different accounts. This evidence also proves that complainant availed two loans. The complainant concealed the factum of availing the subsequent loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- and has not approached this Forum with clean hands. In view of what has been discussed above, the complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, this complaint fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced : 06-08-2015 (M.P.Singh Pahwa ) President (Sukhwinder Kaur) Member (Jarnail Singh ) Member
| |
