DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC No. 348 of 13-11-2009<br /> Decided on : 26-02-2010 <br /> <br /> Vikesh Kumar S/o Khem Raj, Resident of 123, Ward No. 3, Arya Smaj Wali Gali, Kalanwali, District Sirsa. <br /> ..... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> Sree Ram Transport Finance Company Ltd., through its Manager/authorised person, Ist Floor, Above Amway 2765-B, Tinkoni Chowk, G.T. Road, Bathinda.<br /> ... Opposite party<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM <br /> <br /> Ms. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Sanjay Goyal, Counsel for the complainant <br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. J.S. Kohli,counsel for the<br /> opposite party. <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> 1. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he purchased second hand vehicle 2006 Eicher/11.10 HSD PB-03P-9397 from Darshan Kaur W/o Butta Singh for earning his livelihood. He obtained loan of Rs. 5,60,000/- on above said vehicle from the opposite party which was to be paid in equal monthly installments. At the time of disbursement of loan, the opposite party took Registration Certificate of the vehicle for getting it transferred in the name of the complainant, but the opposite party neither got it transferred nor returned the same to him despited his repeated requests. In the absence of R.C, he is unable to ply his vehicle whereas on the other hand, the opposite party is charging installment of Rs. 19200/- from 04-03-2009 and thereafter on 4th of every month. Hence, this complaint for issuing directions to the opposite party to return his original R.C. and give rebate of installments and also pay him compensation and cost.<br /> 2. The opposite party filed reply stating therein that the original R.C. of the vehicle in question is in possession of the complainant. He got the registration of the vehicle transferred in his name and also supplied copy of the same to the replying opposite party. It has been pleaded that complainant has deposited only one i.e. first installment of loan amounting to Rs. 19,200/-. Since he had committed default in making payment of installments, opposite party has been issuing notices to him from time to time and in order to avoid his liability to pay the outstanding dues against him, he filed the present false complaint.<br /> 3. Parties have led evidence besides filing affidavits in support of their respective pleadings.<br /> 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. <br /> 5. The complainant alleges that he could not ply his vehicle which he had purchased with the finance of the opposite party for want of its Registration Certificate which he had handed over to latter for getting it transferred in his name. The opposite party contested the above said claim of the complainant on the ground that complainant himself got the Registration Certificate of the vehicle in question transferred in his name and had supplied copy thereof to it. Copy of Registration Certificate is placed on record as Ex. R-19 . Therefore, plea of the opposite party appears to be correct.<br /> 6. The opposite party has also given an explanation as to why the complainant has filed this complaint. It has pleaded that vehicle in question was financed by it and the complainant was to pay monthly installments of Rs. 19,200/-. It has been pleaded that after paying first installment of Rs. 19,200/- on 04-03-2009, he did not pay any other installments and that when it gave a notice dated 10-10-2009 Ex. R-9 recalculating entire outstanding amount, complainant filed this complaint. Further allegations of the opposite party have been proved by the statement of account Ex. R-2 which shows payment of only one installment of Rs. 19,200/- on 04-03-2009 and Ex. R-9 which is a notice to the complainant to pay outstanding amount of Rs. 8,77,920/-. <br /> 7. The complainant has not placed any evidence on record to show that he paid any other installment after 04-03-2009. Thus, above finding corroborates earlier findings that the complainant had filed this complaint to ward of the recall of outstanding loan. Therefore, we found no merit in this complaint. Hence, it is dismissed with no order as to costs.<br /> Pronounced :<br /> 26-02-2010 <br /> (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br /> <br /> <br /> (Amarjeet P aul) *ik Member<br />