DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, PUNJAB, CAMP COURT AT DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION, AMRITSAR

 

Consumer Complaint No : RBT/CC/2018/261

Date of Institution : 27.11.2018/29.11.2021

Date of Decision    : 23.05.2022

Arjit Singh Aged about 50 years R/o Village Majhwind, Amritsar. 

…Complainant

Versus

1. Chairman Punjab National Bank, New Delhi.

2. Manager Punjab National Bank, Branch Office, Kathunangal, Tehsil      Majitha, District Amritsar.

…Opposite Parties

Amended Complaint Under Section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Present: Sh. Prabhjot Singh Adv. Counsel for complainant. 

     Sh. A.K. Sharma Adv. Counsel for opposite parties.

Quorum:-     

1.Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover, President.

2.Smt. Urmila Kumari, Member

ORDER BY SH. ASHISH KUMAR GROVER, PRESIDENT

The present complaint has been received from the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar by the order of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab, Chandigarh, dated 26.11.2021 for its disposal. The complainant has filed the present complaint under Consumer Protection Act, (as amended upto date) against the Chairman, Punjab National Bank, and others (herein after called as opposite parties). The brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant got financed one vehicle Car make Innova from the opposite parties for the total loan amount of Rs. 8,49,647/- which vehicle was registered with the District Transport office having vehicle No. PB-02-BH-4242 and Engine Number is 6461140, Chassis No. 40072174495. It was settled that the complainant shall pay 84 equal installments of Rs. 10,500/- each which also include as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. It is alleged that the complainant from time to time had been making payment of the installments regularly and last installment he has made to the opposite parties on 31.8.2017. Thus, the complainant cleared the loan amount as per the settlement made with the opposite parties. But the opposite parties not issued No Objection Certificate, so that he can get the hypothecation on the said vehicle. The opposite parties illegally demanded another sum of Rs. 6,10,000/- alleging that the said amount is outstanding towards interest. It is further alleged that the loan account statement clearly proves that the complainant made payment of the total loan amount vide installments as per the settlement made with the opposite parties. The complainant approached the opposite parties time and again with the request that they may issued No Objection Certificate but the opposite parties is not ready to hear the genuine and legitimate requests of the complainant. Hence, the present complaint is filed for seeking the following reliefs:-

i. To direct the opposite parties to issue No Objection Certificate of the above said vehicle.

ii. To pay Rs. 70,000/- on account of compensation and Rs. 11,000/- on account of litigation expenses. 

2. In reply, the opposite parties in preliminary objections submitted that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable as there is an outstanding of Rs. 5,81,702/- as on 30.9.2017 + contractual rate of interest with monthly rests + penal interest w.e.f. 1.10.2017 and the said loan account was declared NPA on 10.10.2017. The complainant has not come to the Consumer Commission with clean hands and suppressed the material facts. The complainant has executed the balance and confirmation letter dated 21.1.2013 confirming and admitting the balance of Rs. 7,77,660/- as on 31.12.2012 and balance and confirmation letter dated 22.9.2015 admitting and confirming the balance of Rs. 6,87,376/- as on 31.8.2015 and as such the present complaint is not liable.

3. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant purchased a Car Innova for Rs. 8,49,647/- on 1.5.2010. It is denied that the installment was fixed as Rs. 10,500/- per month for eighty four installments i.e. for 7 years. However, the loan was advanced for 7 years i.e. Rs. 15,000/- per month i.e. eighty four EMI installments. The said installments for Rs. 15,000/- per month are also mentioned in loan application/sanctioned Form dated 1.5.2010 and letter of Hypothecation dated 8.5.2010 duly executed by the complainant. It is also denied that the settlement took place between the complainant and opposite parties. There was an outstanding of Rs. 5,81,702/- as on 30.9.2017 + contractual rate of interest with monthly rests + penal interest w.e.f. 1.10.2017 and the said loan account was declared NPA on 10.10.2017. It is alleged that Letter of Hypothecation and balance and confirmation letter dated 21.1.2013 confirming and admitting the balance of Rs. 7,77,660/- as on 31.12.2012 and another balance and confirmation letter dated 22.9.2015 admitting and confirming the balance of Rs. 6,87,376/- as on 31.8.2015. As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and prayed for the dismissal of complaint.

4. In order to prove the case the complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of bank statement Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3, copy of the RC of the vehicle Ex.C-4 and closed the evidence.

5. To rebut the case of the complainant the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Charanjit Singh Sr. Manager Ex.O.P-1, copy of application cum appraisal sanction for car loan Ex.O.P-2, copy of the EMI note Ex.O.P-3, copy of letter dated 8.5.2010 Ex.O.P-4, copy of letter of hyphothecation Ex.O.P-5, copy of particulars of car Ex.O.P-6, copy of the letter dated 21.1.2013 Ex.O.P-7, copy of the letter dated 22.9.2015 Ex.O.P-8, copy of the notice dated 11.5.2017 Ex.O.P-9, copy of notice dated 24.10.2017 Ex.O.P-10 and closed the evidence.

6. We have heard the arguments of the parties and have gone through the records of the file. 

7. The complainant alleged in his complaint that he got financed one vehicle Car make Innova from the opposite parties for the total loan amount of Rs. 8,49,647/-. The complainant alleged in the complaint that it was settled that the complainant shall pay 84 equal installments of Rs. 10,500/- each. The complainant further alleged that the complainant from time to time had been making payment of the installments regularly and last installment he has paid to the opposite parties on 31.8.2017. Thus, the complainant cleared the loan amount as per the settlement made with the opposite parties but the opposite parties not issued No Objection Certificate, so that he can get removed the hypothecation on the said vehicle. The complainant alleged that the opposite parties illegally demanded another sum of Rs. 6,10,000/- by alleging that the said amount is outstanding towards interest. The complainant alleged that there is no outstanding against him and he has already paid the entire loan amount in 84 installments. 

8. The opposite parties filed written version and alleged that the complainant got financed the loan amount of Rs. 8,49,647/- on 1.5.2010 and the said loan was financed for seven years and the EMI of the said loan is Rs. 15,000/- per month. The complainant has not paid the entire loan amount and the loan account of the complainant was declared NPA on 10.10.2017. It is further alleged that the complainant from time to time signed the balance and confirmation letter by admitting the balance loan amount, as such there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. 

9. Ld. Counsel for complainant argued that the complainant has obtained the above said loan and the opposite parties disclosed that the 84 installments of Rs. 10,500/- has to be paid by the complainant. But the Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties argued that the complainant obtained the above said loan of Rs. 8,49,647/- and agree to repay the loan in 84 installments of Rs. 15,000/-. Ld. Counsel for opposite parties argued that it is clearly mentioned in the application cum sanction Form of loan amount i.e. Ex.O.P-2 that the loan amount of Rs. 8,49,647/- and the EMI is Rs. 15,000/- in 84 installments and the said Form was signed by the complainant. The opposite parties also produced the letter of Hypothecation  in which it is clearly mentioned that the interest @ 11% will be charged on the loan amount and the said Hypothecation was also signed by the complainant. The Hypothecation letter is Ex.O.P-5. The opposite parties also produced the balance and security confirmation letter Ex.O.P-7 & O.P-8 which was signed by the complainant and confirmed that the balance amount mentioned in the balance and security confirmation letter. Therefore, as per the evidence produced by the opposite parties it is established that the complainant not deposited the EMIs as per loan agreement and the account of the complainant was declared NPA and the complainant is not entitled for No Objection Certificate as he claimed in the complaint. 

10. In view of the above discussion there is no merit in the present complaint, therefore, the same is dismissed. Copy of the order will be supplied to the parties free of costs by the District Consumer Commission, Amritsar as per rules. File be sent back to District Consumer Commission, Amritsar. 

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

       23rd Day of May, 2022

 

 

            (Ashish Kumar Grover)

            President             

 

(Urmila Kumari)

Member