Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/333/2012

Tejinder Singh S/o Darshan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Parmod Gupta

12 Apr 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                          Complaint No. 333 of 2012.

                                                                                          Date of institution: 02.04.2012     

                                                                                          Date of decision: 12.04.2017.

 

 

Tajinder Singh aged about 40 years son of Sh. Darshan Singh, resident of Village & P.O. Balachaur, Tehsil Chhachhrauli, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.

 

                   …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. M/s Shri Ram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. Registered Office at Mookambika Complex No. 4, Lady Desika road, Mylapore, Chennai 60004, through its CMD/Authorized Signatory.
2. M/s Shri Ram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. through its Branch Manager/ Authorized Signatory, Branch Office at SCO 510, Ist Floor, Opp. Raghunath Mandir, Lal Dwara, Jagadhri Road, Yamuna Nagar. (Haryana).                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         

                                                                                                                             …Respondents.

 

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                          SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

 

Present:          Sh. Parmod Bansal, Advocate for complainant.

                        Sh. Ajay Shakti Goyal, Advocate, counsel for respondent.

                       

ORDER  (ASHOK KUMAR GARG PRESIDENT)

 

1                       The present complaint has been filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986.

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant purchased second hand truck bearing registration No. HR-65-0939 from one Surender Kumar Sharma against a consideration of Rs. 5,05,000/- vide agreement which was reduced into writing on 11.09.2008. Thereafter, complainant had invested a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- in the said vehicle to make repair and replacement of tyre, tubes and parts etc.  In this way, total value of the said vehicle becomes Rs.7,00,000/-. After that complainant approached the OPs and requested them to provide financial assistance against the truck in question. The OPs agreed to provide a financial assistance to the tune of Rs. 5,50,000/- in the month of November, 2008 and the said loan was repayable in 36 EMI of Rs. 33,000/- each. The complainant had deposited five (5) installments i.e. paid Rs. 1,10,000/- to the OPs but later on due to some unavoidable circumstances he could not pay the installments regularly. The official of the OPs with the help of musclemen snatched the vehicle from the complainant in the month of October, 2010. The complainant requested the official of the Ops to release the vehicle but all in vain. However, later on official of the OPs illegally sold the said vehicle without the consent and disclosing the fact to the complainant whereas all the original documents are in the possession of the complainant. After that, complainant as astonished when he received a legal notice dated 06.03.2012 from the OPs in which they have demanded the illegal amount of Rs. 5,47,720/- from the complainant. After receipt of the notice in question, the complainant visited the office of the OPs and requested to withdraw the same but all in vain. Lastly, prayed for directing the OPs to quash the notice dated 06.03.2012 and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.

3.                     Upon notice OPs appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable; complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; complainant has concealed the true and material facts. The true facts are that complainant has got financed a truck bearing registration No. HR-65-0939 from the OP Finance Company vide agreement dated 30.01.2010 for an amount of Rs. 6,15,000/- and this loan amount was repayable in monthly installments but the complainant has not paid the loan installments as per rules and regulations of the OPs Company and become defaulter. Now, an amount of Rs. 5.54.720/- excluding other future charges is outstanding against the complainant. It has been further mentioned that parties were governed by the Arbitration agreement and if any dispute or differences arises between them, shall be settled through Arbitration; this Forum has no jurisdiction and on merit controverted the plea taken in the complaint and reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint as there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs Finance Company.

4.                     To prove the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A and documents such as receipt for depositing the amount as Annexure C-1 to C-5 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the Ops tendered into evidence photo copy of account statement as Annexure R-1 and R-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs Finance Company.

6.                     We have heard the counsels of both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file very carefully and minutely.

7.                     It is not disputed that complainant obtained a financial assistance/loan amounting to Rs. 5,50,000/- from the OPs Finance Company as per version of the complainant himself. Further, the complainant has also admitted in his complaint that he deposited only 5 installments of Rs. 23,000/- each i.e. a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- was paid to the OPs Finance Company against the total loan amount. The only grievances of the complainant is that in the month of October, 2010, the officials of the Ops alongwith musclemen snatched the vehicle from the complainant and later on they have sold the same. In support of his case some receipts for depositing the installments Annexure C-1 to C-5 has been placed on file by the complainant, except these receipts nothing has been placed on file. It is own case of the complainant that he had paid only 5 installments out of total loan amount then how the complainant is entitled to get any relief. It is also pertinent to mention here that as per own version of the complainant, the official of the OPs snatched the vehicle in October, 2010 but the present complaint has been filed after a period of near about 2 years i.e. in the month of April, 2012 and no explanation has been disclosed by the complainant for not lodging the complaint immediately. Even, the complainant has also not placed on file any documents or any complaint made to any police authority for snatching the vehicle illegally by the official of the OPs. It is not disputed that the loan was granted to the complainant as per agreement against the security of vehicle in question itself and as per agreement the Ops Finance Company was having right to take the possession of the vehicle in question in case of default of the amount of due installments. It is not the case of the complainant that he repaid the entire loan amount and the official of the Ops Finance Company despite that snatched the vehicle illegally, so, when the complainant was himself negligent in not paying the installments then how he can take advantage of his own wrong. Furthermore, the contents of complaint particularly mentioned in para No.9 in which complainant has himself admitted that he was astonished when he received a legal notice dated 06.03.2012 in which the official of the OPs demanded an amount of Rs. 5,45,720/- from the complainant, it is clear that the present complaint has been filed only just to save the skin from the recovery by the official of the Ops finance company.  Even the matter involved in the present complaint is relating to account and subject to terms and conditions of the agreement executed between the parties.

8.                     In the circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that the complainant has totally failed to prove any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, hence we have no option except to dismiss the present complaint.

9.                     Resultantly, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the Civil Court for redressal of  his grievances, if so advised. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court. 12.04.2017.

 

                       

                                                                        (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                        PRESIDENT,

                                                                        DCDRF YAMUNANAGAR

 

                                                                                     

                                                                        (S.C.SHARMA )     

                                                                         MEMBER.