Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/283/2024

Bal Kishan S/o Pola Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance Commercial Finance Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Chetan Sharma

22 Aug 2024

ORDER

CC No.283 of 2024

Bal Kishan Vs. Reliance

 

Present:       Sh. Chetan Sharma, Adv. for the complainant.

 

ORDER:-

     1.     By way of complaint, in hand, complainant alleged, he obtained credit loan facility i.e. agricultural loan from the opponents, in the sum of Rs.15,00,000/- in terms of agreement No.RLALYMN000358413 dated 28.2.2018. He alleged, the opponents assured that it will charge nominal rate of interest and no excessive charges, will be deducted from loan account, as per the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India. As per the loan agreement, the credit facility had to be repaid in monthly installment. Infact, the complainant had availed the credit facility for running a service station of vehicle, in name and style of Dhiman Service Station, within the territorial jurisdiction of Revenue Estate of Village Sabalpur, Tehsil Saraswati Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar, to earn livelihood. Unfortunately, in the year 2019, some officials of the DTP Yamuna Nagar dismantled the service station and his business was collapsed and the situation further aggravated by COVID-19 Pandemic. He requested to the opponents, for settlement of account, but the opponents refused to settle, the same on one or another pretext. He requested the opponents, to adjust, the subsidy amount of 25 per cent of the principal amount, but they raised illegal demand of Rs.25,30,587/- without adjusting subsidy amount of Rs.5,50,000/-, which is an act of negligence, deficiency in service.

     2.         Heard.

     3.         It is well settled principle of law the party who comes before the Commission, is supposed to come with clean hands but in the present case, the complainant is speaking, that the complainant has not come before this Commission, with clean hands. He in Para No.2 of the complaint admitted the credit facility loan was availed from the opponents, as agricultural loan and in the same para, he admitted, he used the loan, which was borrowed under the guise of the agricultural purpose, for the purpose of running a service station of vehicles in the name and style of Dhiman Service Station, within the Revenue Estate of Village Sabalpur, Tehsil Saraswati Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar. This fact itself shows the complainant tried to mis guide the Commission. He also mis guided the opponents and on this score, complaint is not maintainable. Furthermore, document Ex.C2 dated 24.5.2024 which is notice under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI ACT (Securitization and Re-Construction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act), 2002, issued by the opponents, shows, in order to avail the loan facility from the opponents, he mortgaged the commercial property situated at Khewat No.426, Khatauni No.499, Khasra No.35//1, Saraswati Nagar Sabalpur, Tehsil Jagadhri, Yamuna Nagar but he has not disclosed this fact. This amount to concealment of material facts from the Commission. Furthermore, the notice Ex.C2 dated 24.5.2024 received by the complainant, prior to institution of the complaint and it makes clear, the opponents have already initiated the proceedings under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI ACT (Securitization and Re-Construction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act), 2002, and  once, the opponents have already initiated the proceedings against the complainant, under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI ACT (Securitization and Re-Construction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act), 2002, then, complaint before this Commission is not maintainable.

      4.          Lastly, complainant himself admitted, the default in payment of loan amount by him in terms of loan agreement between the parties. Once, he himself committed act of deficiency, qua, repayment of the loan. The loan agreement executed between the parties, quite obvious, it reduced into writing and once, it reduced into writing, definitely, it stipulated all the terms and conditions, such as, rate of interest, penalty amount etc., but the complainant has not placed on record copy of loan agreemet and it is not his case, that the copy of loan agreement was not supplied to him by the opponents. It is patent defect in the evidence of the complainant. So, it is not the fit case, to issue the process against the opponents.

     5.          Hence, due to reasons stated hereinbefore, complaint is dismissed, it being not maintainable, as well as devoid on merits and leaving the complainant to bear, his own cost of litigation. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the complainant free of cost.

      6.          File be consigned to the records.

                                                                                      President,

L. Member.                    Member.                                 DCDRC, YNR,

                                                                                      22.8.2024.

 

 

Typed by: Aarti.