DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,GURGAON-122001.
Consumer Complaint No: 276 of 2010 Date of Institution: 06.04.2010 Date of Decision: 02.11.2015.
Shashi Yadav Proprietor of M/s Dinesh Tour and Travels, Near Yadav Oil Mill, Rajokri, New Delhi-110038.
……Complainant.
Versus
M/s Sundaram Finance Ltd., SCO-35/36, 1st Floor, Sector-12 A, Old Delhi Road, Gurgaon, Opposite Telephone Exchange through its Branch Manager.
..Opposite party
Complaint under Sections 12 & 14 of Consumer Protection Act,1986
BEFORE: SH.SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT.
SMT JYOTI SIWACH, MEMBER
SH.SURENDER SINGH BALYAN, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. J.S.Yadav, Adv for the complainant.
Sh. Manoj Yadav, Adv for the opposite party.
ORDER SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT.
The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he has availed loan of Rs.5,20,000/- from the opposite party on 05.06.2007 vide loan agreement No.CY-1667 regarding vehicle No.HR-55-FT-4504 and the aforesaid loan amount was to be repaid in 35 installments. The complainant paid 1st installment of Rs.18520/- on the same day i.e. on 05.06.2007 and thereafter he has paid 9 installments and last installment was paid in the month of Feb, 2008 and thus, a total sum of Rs.1,85,200/- was paid out of the total loan amount. On 21.10.2009 the complainant requested the opposite party that due to crisis and loss in business he was not in a position to repay the remaining loan installments and he was ready to hand over the possession and documents of said vehicle but the opposite party avoided the matter on one pretext or other. He further requested the opposite party to settle the matter but the OP failed to settle the same. Thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. He prayed that the opposite party be directed to take the possession of the said vehicle along with all documents and settle the remaining loan amount against the property mortgaged with the OP. He also claimed compensation of Rs.50,000/- for harassment and mental agony and Rs.10,000/- as damages. The complaint is supported with an affidavit and the documents placed on file.
2 OP in its written reply has alleged that complainant had availed loan facility from the opposite party but he has failed to repay the loan amount as he has only repaid 9 installments against 35 installments and thus, he has committed breach of terms and conditions of the loan agreement though he was under an obligation to repay the remaining installments.
3 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record available on file.
4 Therefore, from the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence on the file and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it emerges that the complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP alleging deficiency of service on their part on the ground that OP failed to settle the just and legal claim of the complainant as opposite party failed to take possession of the vehicle with all documents and to settle the remaining loan amount against the property.
5 However, as per the contention of the opposite party, the complainant has deposited only nine installments as against 35 installments which were agreed to be paid initially in terms of the loan agreement and the complainant was under an obligation to repay the remaining installments but he failed to pay the said amount despite several requests and as such there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, rather the complainant himself was defaulter in making the installments towards the loan amount.
6 Therefore, after going through the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence placed on file by the parties, it emerges that complainant has miserably failed to substantiate as to how the opposite party has committed deficiency in service so as to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum. Since there is a loan agreement between the parties and in consonance thereof the complainant mortgaged his financed vehicle which was under hypothecation of the OP and the same can be released only after settling the entire outstanding dues. Therefore, we direct the opposite party to release the original documents, if any, and also to release the vehicle from hypothecation subject to payment of all outstanding dues. Since there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, therefore, the parties are left to bear their own costs. The complaint stands disposed off accordingly. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the records after due compliance.
Announced (Subhash Goyal)
02.11.2015 President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Gurgaon
(Jyoti Siwach) (Surender Singh Balyan)
Member Member
