Delhi

New Delhi

CC/379/2010

Sunil Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. India Bulls Financial Services Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

13 May 2019

ORDER

 

                                                                 CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC.379/2010                                                                Dated:

In the matter of:

Sunil Kumar,

E-5, Nehru Vihar,

Timarpur, P.O. Civillines,

Delhi-54.

                                                 ..COMPLAINANT

 

 

VERSUS

India Bulls Financial Services Ltd.,

Through Authorized representative,

Registered office at : F-60, 2^nd Floor,

Malhotra Building, Connaught Place,

New Delhi-110001.

           

...OPPOSITE PARTY

ARUN KUMAR ARYA, PRESIDENT

 

O R D E R

 

 

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.P. under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that being influenced with the lucrative story of the agent of the OP, complainant applied for the personal loan with the OP and the same was also sanctioned to the tune of Rs.62,594/-  to be repaid in 20 EMIs.  As a part of loan document, the OP Co. kept with it 4 blank signed cheques as a security against the loan granted.  An amount of Rs.3722/- was deducted on account of EMIs .  The complainant sincerely paid the EMIs through ECS and subsequently  by cash to the representative of OP.   On 31.8.2008, the complainant paid the last EMI of Rs.3500/- but on 7.9.2008, he got a letter from the Co. that an amount of Rs.8686/- was still outstanding.  The complainant requested OP to settle the account but instead of settling the same the  OP filed a Criminal Complaint u/s 138 of N.I. Act against the complainant by using the security cheque signed by him to extort the money from him.  This acts of OP amounts to deficiency in services,  hence this complaint.

 

2.     Complaint has been contested by the OP.  OP filed its written statement in which it denied any deficiency in services on its part.  It is further stated that the  matter has been amicably settled between the parties before Mediation Cell, Dwarka vide Settlement  order dated 5.5.2010 and the complainant had already paid a sum of Rs.29,000/- to OP Co. Hence, the present complaint became infructuous in the light of settlement arrived between the parties.

3.     Both parties have filed their evidence by way of affidavits.

4.     We have heard argument advance at the Bar by the complainant and have perused the record.

 5.    It is argued on behalf of OP that since the matter was already settled and payment was made by the complainant, the complainant ceased to be consumer within the meaning of section 2(1)(d) of CP Act.

6.     Since the parties have already settled the issue before Mediation Cell, Dwarka vide Settlement order dated 5.5.2010 and the payment in terms of the settlement has already been made by the  complainant then the present complaint cannot be sustained.  The order of the Predecessor Bench dt. 4.11.2011 is of no consequences as once parties settled their case, their rights to agitate further extinguishes (relied upon PR No.1798 of 2018 of Hon’ble National Commission titled as Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M.M. Sharma dt. 12.10.2018.

7.      In the light of above discussion we find no merits in the present complaint.  The same is hereby dismissed.

 

A copy each of this order each be sent to both parties free of cost by post. Orders be also sent to www.confonet.nic.in. File be consigned to record room.

Pronounced in open Forum on 13/05/2019..

 

                                       (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                                               PRESIDENT

(NIPUR CHANDNA)                                       (H M VYAS)

       MEMBER                                                    MEMBER