Punjab

StateCommission

A/11/92

Magma Fincorp Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Roop Singh - Opp.Party(s)

Rishi Kaushal

29 Jan 2015

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,  PUNJAB     SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

 

                                     

                                      First Appeal No.92 of 2011.

 

 

                                                          Date of Institution:    19.01.2011.

                                                          Date of Decision:               29.01.2015.

 

 

1.      Magma Fincorp Limited (formerly known as Magma Sharachi           Finance Limited), 24, Park Street, Kolkata, through its           Managing Director.

 

2.      Magma Fincorp Limited (formerly known as Magma Sharachi           Finance Limited), 2765-B, opposite Tinkoni, above Amway Showroom, G.T. Road, Bathinda, through its           Manager/Authorized Signatory/Branch Head.

 

 

                                                          …..Appellants/OPs No.2 & 3        

 

                                      Versus

 

 

1.      Roop Singh S/o Sh. Chanchal Singh, R/o Village Katorewal,   Tehsil Malout, District Sri Muktsar Sahib.

 

                                                         ….Respondent/Complainant

 

2.      ICICI Bank Limited, near Clock Tower, Bibiwala Road,    Bathinda, through its Branch Manager.

 

                                                          ….Performa Respondent/OP-1

         

First Appeal against order dated 16.11.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda.

Quorum:-

 

 

                    Shri Baldev Singh Sekhon, Presiding Member.

                    Shri Harcharan Singh Guram, Member.     

Present:-

 

          For the appellants       :         None.

          For respondent No.1   :         Sh. Kulwinder Singh, Advocate.

          For respondent No.2   :         Dispensed with.

          . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

BALDEV SINGH SEKHON, PRESIDING MEMBER:-

                                     

                   This appeal has been filed by the appellants/OPs-2 & 3 (hereinafter called, “the OPs No.2 & 3) against the order dated 16.11.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (in short, “the District Forum”), Bathinda vide which the complaint filed by the respondent no.1/complainant (hereinafter called, “the complainant”) was accepted against OPs-2 & 3 with Rs.5,000/- as costs and compensation, while the same was dismissed qua OP-1. The OPs No.1 & 2 were further directed to withdraw the demand of Rs.59,030/- raised on 30.09.2009 and to further issue “No Due Certificate” to the complainant.

2.           Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant purchased one truck bearing registration No.RJ-13-GA-1617 by availing loan from OP-1, vide loan Account No.LVMLT-00008611988. The said vehicle was duly hypothecated with OP-1. The complainant agreed to pay the loan in 47 equal monthly instalments (in short, “the EMIs”) of Rs.32,649/- each. The first instalment was of Rs.26,381/-, commencing from 22.12.2006 and the last was of Rs.32,649/- payable on or before 22.10.2010 as per the payment schedule issued by OP-1. It was pleaded that terms and conditions of the loan agreement were not supplied to him by the OPs and further that they obtained signatures of the complainant on the alleged loan documents without explaining the contents to him. As per the repayment schedule, the officials of OP-1 used to collect the EMIs from the complainant from his village against specific receipt upto August, 2009. OP-1 collected last EMI of Rs.32,649/- on 24.08.2009. When on 21.09.2009 the complainant approached the officials of OP-1 for deposit of instalment for the month of September, 2009, they showed ignorance about the loan document and refused to get the instalment deposited again approached OP-1 on 22.09.2009 along with previous receipts. OP-1 conveyed him that some loan accounts had been taken over by OPs no.2 & 3 and advised him to deposit the subsequent EMIs with them. Thereafter, he started depositing instalments regularly with OP-3 from 23.09.2009.  However, OPs no.2 & 3 vide their letter dated 30.09.2009 raised a demand of Rs.59,030/- on account of EMIs due for the month of September, 2009 and threatened to repossess the vehicle and to sell the same. On receipt of the said letter, when he approached the officials of OP-3, it did not disclose the details of the demand. Hence, the he filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, seeking directions to the OPs to withdraw the impugned demand of Rs.59,030/- and to pay Rs.30,000/-  as compensation/damages besides Rs.5,000/- as costs.
3.           Upon notice, the OP No.1, 2 & 3, in their identical written reply, took legal objections that the District Forum had no jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint. It was pleaded that the dispute was with regard to the settlement of account only and, therefore, the remedy was available to the complainant to file civil suit for rendition of accounts and in such cases, the District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. It was further pleaded that the complainant was informed about the taking over of his loan  account by OPs no.2 & 3 through various letters. Denying all other allegations, dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
4.           Parties led their evidence by way of affidavits and documents before the District Forum, which after going through the same, allowed the complaint, in aforesaid terms.
5.           Aggrieved by this order, the OPs-2 & 3 have come up in appeal on the grounds that no cogent and specific documents were placed on record by the complainant to prove his claim. It was submitted that the District Forum failed to consider that the complainant, who is an admitted defaulter of the loan account, has no right to seek any relief from the District Forum. Acceptance of the appeal and setting aside of the impugned order was prayed.
6.           We have gone through the pleadings of the parties and have carefully perused the evidence proved on record.
7.           The specific grievance of the complainant is that after obtaining the loan from OP-1, he had been regularly making the payments of the EMIs as fixed by it and nothing was outstanding. Thereafter, his account was taken over by OPs-2 & 3 w.e.f. 23.09.2009 and thereafter, they raised a demand of Rs.59,030/- vide letter dated 30.09.2009 (Ex.C-2). The complainant has placed on record all the receipts (Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-46) in support of having paid all EMIs with OP-1. He has also proved on record the statement of account Ex.C-47) in support of his averments.  When the complainant approached OPs-2 & 3 for obtaining the details of the demand so raised by them, same was not supplied. OPs-2 & 3 have neither pleaded in their written reply nor produced any evidence to show , how an amount of Rs.59,030/- was outstanding against the complainant. The complainant has even placed on record the evidence to show payment of subsequent EMISs made by him with OPs-2 & 3. It is correct that the District Forum  cannot go into the details of the statement of the account, but the OPs were bound to supply the details of the demand so raised by them to the complainant. Failure on their part to supply the details to complainant amounted to deficiency in service, which can be definitely looked into by the District Forum.  Since the OPs have failed to justify the demand raised by them , then through letter dated 30.09.2009, they cannot realize the same. Thus, the District Forum has rightly held OPs-2 & 3 deficient in rendering services to the complainant. No cogent ground has been specified in the present appeal, to challenge the well reasoned findings of the District Forum.
8.           In view of above discussion, the appeal of the appellants, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed.
9.           The appellants have deposited the amount of Rs.2500/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
10.           Arguments in this appeal were heard on 14.01.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
11.           The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                               (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON)

                                                                    PRESIDING MEMBER

 

                       

                                                          (HARCHARAN SINGH GURAM)

                                                                              MEMBER

 

January 29, 2015.                                                               

(Gurmeet S)