District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No. 178/2022.
Date of Institution:04.04.2022.
Date of Order:.17.07.2023.
Jaivir Chandila son of late Shri Antlal R/o village Dungerpur, Faridabad.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd., through its Manager/Managing Director Branch Office NIT, Faridabad.
…Opposite party
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Subhash Kaushik, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Yashpal Yadav. counsel for opposite party.
MUKESH SHARMA, MEMBER
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant purchased a car No. HR51-BD-9834 and financed from opposite party of amounting to Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- were paid as earnest money to the opposite party and rest of the amount was to be paid in form in installments and the total instalments were 60,. This amount was to be paid within five years to this
affect an agreement dated 25.09.2015 was executed between complainant and the opposite party. The complainant had also paid Rs.3,00,000.- to the opposite party on account of installments. The opposite party had given loan amounting of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant in order to purchase above said car Swift and to this effect Loan-cum-Hypothecation Agreement was executed between the opposite party and complainant in the month of September-2015. The above said loan was to be returned within 5 years in the form of installments and he had paid 48 installments and total amount of Rs.3,00,000/- including earnest money which had been paid by the complainant till date of purchasing of above said car. The rest of the amount of loan was to be paid by the complainant within 60 months in 60 installments. The complainant had paid Rs.3,00,000/- by cheque/transfer in account of the opposite party. The complainant had been paying the installments regularly . There were some default of not making the installment in time in respect of the installments due upon the complainant because of accident and fear of snatching of car by finance company/opposite party and complainant could not ply the car on the road. The complainant had lodged a heavy claim of damages of the car to the insurance company. It was further relevant to mention here that the car of the complainant met with an accident where in some persons received minor injuries but the crowd damaged the by throwing stones upon the car due to accident but somehow it was saved by the local villager and police and the car was badly damaged by the accident which was under repair. Prior to this accident when the car of the complainant was on way on dated 20.02.2022 the goons of the opposite party by beating the driver, tried to take the possession of the vehicle forcibly but the intervention of passer by and police officials on petrol duty thus they could not take the possession forcibly. On 25.2.2022 the complainant visited to the office of the opposite party and offered Rs.1,50,000/- and they did not except
the amount saying that the complainant had to pay entire amount of installments as the complainant requested to the opposite party that he was enable to make the entire amount of installments as he had taken a loan if he had such huge amount he would have not taken the loan. Despite of having received the due amount they refused to hand over the statement of account so that he could make the full and final payment of the loan. The request of the complainant was not taken account rather they threatened to snatch the car of the complainant and they started demanding Rs.2,25,000/- by saying that his agreement had been terminated by the company/bank therefore, he was required to bring the entire amount of loan including the interest i.e Rs/2.25.000/- while the balance amount on account of remaining installments was due upon the complainant Rs.64000/- to which the complainant was ready to pay the entire amount of installments in case the No Objection was given to the complainant for which he had been asking for last two months. The opposite party had terminated he agreement which was executed between the opposite party and the complainant, for 5 years illegally and arbitrarily. The complainant sent legal notice dated 24.07.2020 to the opposite party through registered post but all in vain. The aforesaid act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to:
a) pay compensation amounting to Rs.50,000/- as well as Rs.2,00,000/- including interest on account of not plying the vehicle on road and direction be given to the opposite party not to take the possession of car NO. HR51b 9834 by help of goons except the due course of law. As well as to return the signed documents to the complainant may kindly be passed in favour of the complainant and against the opposite party company.
b) any other relief which this Hon’ble Forum deems fit and proper also be awarded in favour of the complainant against the opposite party.
b) pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs. 11,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite party put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the complainant had not come with clean hands before the Hon’ble Commission to get the relief and complainant had concealed the true and material facts from this Hon’ble Commission as such complainant did not deserve any relied from this Hon’ble commission. The complainant had borrowed the loan of Rs.4,80,000/- in the month and year of February, 2015 from which complainant had signed and executed loan agreement No. FARIDO502190013 dated 20.02.0215. At the event of default in making payment, complainant had taken another loan amounting to Rs.1,72,000/- (New Loan A/c. No FARIDT006200001 dated 22.06.2020) from the opposite party to set off the outstanding balance of the old loan account No. FARIDO502190013 dated 20.02.2015. The complainant had taken new loan in the month and year of June, 2020 for which the complainant had signed and executed loan cum hypothecation agreement No. FARIDT006200001 dated 22.06.2020 which was to be paid in 18 equitable monthly installments. The complainant had not paid even the installments of the new loan. Opposite party denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
4. We have heard the parties and appraised the material on record carefully.
5. In this case , the complaint was filed by the complainant with the prayer to pay compensation amounting to Rs.50,000/- as well as Rs.2,00,000/- including interest on account of not plying the vehicle on road and direction be given to the opposite party not to take the possession of car NO. HR51BD 9834 by help of goons except the due course of law. As well as to return the signed documents to the complainant may kindly be passed in favour of the complainant and against the opposite party company.
6. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it has been revealed that the complainant had borrowed the loan of Rs.4,80,000/- in the month and year of Feb. 2015 from which the complainant had signed and executed loan-cum-hypothecation agreement No. FARID0502190013 dated 20.02.2015. But due to default in making payment of installment the complainant had taken another loan amount to Rs.1,72,000/- under New loan Account No. FARIDT006200001 dated 22.06.2020 from the opposite party to set off the outstanding balance of the old loan account No. FARID0502190013 dated 20.02.2015.
7. The complainant had signed and executed Loan Cum Hypothecation agreement No. FARIDT006200001 dated 22.06.2020. But he had failed to pay regular installment of the new loan as per Ex.R-3 placed on the file. The opposite party had adjusted the amount of new loan, after deducting loan processing fee, in the old loan Account No. FARID0502190013 dated 20.02.2015 and closed the same. Resultantly, the condition of hypothecation agreement remained applicable on this vehicle taken on loan.
8. From the facts & circumstances of the case, the Commission is of the
opinion that the complainant has paid only first loan amount, he can take NOC of the first loan only and in second loan he can get NOC after paying the remaining EMI of the loan amount. Hence, the complaint is disposed off with the direction to opposite party to issue the NOC of the First loan bearing A/c No. FARID0502190013 dated 20.02.2015 and the opposite party is further directed to issue NOC of second loan bearing FARIDT006200001 dated 22.06.2020 after getting the last & final EMI of the said loan. There are no order as to costs.
Announced on: 17.07.2023 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
