Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

FA/13/2428

SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FIN.CO - Complainant(s)

Versus

SALEEM GADULI - Opp.Party(s)

SH. SATISH SHARMA

03 Feb 2023

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                                    FIRST APPEAL NO. 2428 OF 2013

(Arising out of order dated 19.09.2013 passed in C.C.No.57/2013 by the District Commission, Ratlam)

 

SRI RAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO.LTD. & ANR.                                      …          APPELLANT

 

Versus

                 

SALEEM GADULI.                                                                                            …         RESPONDENT                                      

 

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                            :      PRESIDING MEMBER

                 HON’BLE SHRI D. K. SHRIVASTAVA               :      MEMBER  

                                    

 

                                      O R D E R

03.02.2023

 

           Shri Satish Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants.

            None for the respondent.

                       

As per Shri A. K. Tiwari :       

                  This appeal by the opposite parties/appellants is directed against the order dated 19.09.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ratlam (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.57/2013 whereby the District Commission has allowed the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent and directed the opposite parties/appellants give NOC of the vehicle bearing registration no.GJ-09 Y-9417 on respondent depositing Rs.9,000/-.  The appellants are also directed to pay compensation of Rs.3,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.2,000/- as costs.   

2.                The facts of the case in short are that the complainant/respondent had obtained loan for a sum of Rs.2,70,000/- on

-2-

19.03.2009 for his truck bearing registration no. GJ-09 Y-9417 which was to be repaid in 35 instalments. It is submitted that the respondent has to repaid the loan amount with interest total Rs.3,66,633/- in 35 instalments whereas as per account statement he paid Rs.3,70,485/- of which he had receipt. It is alleged that despite payment as aforesaid, the appellants are not giving no dues certificate by cancelling the hypothecation agreement and asking for payment of Rs.2,08,911/-. He therefore approached the District Commission alleging deficiency in service on part of the appellants seeking relief. The appellants resisted the complaint stating that the respondent failed to deposit the monthly instalments in time.  The respondent did not produce the receipts regarding payment and for escaping from the liability of making outstanding amount, he has filed the complaint. The District Commission allowed the complaint as aforesaid.

2.                Challenging the aforesaid order, the opposite parties/appellants have filed this appeal stating that the District Commission has erred in allowing the complaint, without considering the aspect that still there is outstanding amount of Rs.2,08,911/- against the respondent and that is why the appellants did not provide him no dues certificate. There is no deficiency in service on part of the appellants.

3.                Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and having gone through the impugned order and the evidence available on record, we

-3-

observe that there is an account statement of the appellants, filed by the complainant/respondent which is at page 48 in the record of the District Commission, and on the strength of the same, the respondent has submitted that he paid full loan amount.  On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that still there is outstanding amount Rs.2,08,911/- against the respondent.

4.                In the light of the aforesaid document, we are of considered opinion that the matter deserves to be remanded to examine the authenticity of the said document that whether the respondent paid the full loan amount or still there is outstanding amount against him as pleaded by the appellants.  In this view of the matter, the case is remanded to the District Commission for decision afresh on merits in accordance with law.

5.                Parties are directed to appear before the Forum on 07.03.2023.

6.                Parties are directed to file additional evidence, if any, in support of their contentions.

7.                The District Commission is directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. Needless to say that the observations made hereinabove shall not come in way of passing the order by the District Commission.

 

 

-4-

8.                With the aforesaid observations and directions, the impugned order is set-aside and this appeal stands disposed of. However, no order as to costs of this appeal.

 

    (A. K. Tiwari)                      (D. K. Shrivastava)

                   Presiding Member                          Member