BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.16/13.

Date of instt.: 05.02.2013. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 24.07.2015.

Jarnail Singh s/o Mahender Singh R/o H.No.12k, W.No.10 Salem Pur, Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

Shri Ram Transport Finance Company, Opposite Bansal Hospital, Gupta Complex, Ambala Road, Kaithal through its Branch Manager.

..……..Opposite Party.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before:          Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.

                        Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Sh. O.P.Gulati, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. Deepak Seth, Advocate for the opposite party.

                       ORDER

(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he is owner in possession of heavy vehicle bearing No.HR-38J-9848 and the said vehicle was initially financed for sum of Rs.4 lacs by the Op.  It is alleged that at the time of taking loan from the Op, it was disclosed by the Op that the rate of interest will be @ 10% p.a. and in lieu of consideration provided by the Op, they have taken the signatures of complainant on blank and printed papers and the contents of which were also disclosed by them.  It is further alleged that the complainant is regularly paying the instalments of loan to the Op.  It is further alleged that the Op had charged excessive rate of interest and cost from the complainant on their own and that too against the terms and conditions of agreement as disclosed by the Op.  It is further alleged that the complainant several times requested the Op to provide a copy of agreement, other loan documents and copy of account statement just to settle his account finally but every time, the Op switched over the matter on one pretext or the other and just delayed the matter for charging extra amount.  It is further alleged that the complainant is ready and willing to finally settle his loan account with the Op as per law but for that purpose, the complainant is in dire need of certified copy of hypothecation agreement, true copy of account statement upto date.  It is further alleged that several times, the complainant demanded all these documents from the Op but they refused to supply the same.  This way, the Op is deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite party appeared before this forum and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; jurisdiction.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op.  On merits, it is stated that the Op never charged excessive rate of interest or cost from the complainant.  The interest was charged as per the loan agreement duly executed between the complainant and the Op.  The complainant was never refused to obtain the copy of loan agreement and the statement of account from the Op.  The other contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

3.     In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to C45 and closed evidence on 13.05.2015.  On the other hand, the Op tendered in evidence the documents Ex.R1 to R3 and closed evidence on 09.03.2015.     

4.     We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties. 

5.     Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant is owner in possession of heavy vehicle bearing No.HR-38J-9848 and the said vehicle was financed by the Ops.  Ld. Counsel for the complainant contends that at the time of taking loan from the Ops, it was disclosed by the Ops that the rate of interest will be @ 9.5% p.a. and in lieu of consideration provided by the Ops, they have taken the signatures of complainant on blank and printed papers.  The Ops had charged excessive rate of interest and cost from the complainant on their own and that too against the terms and conditions of agreement as disclosed by the Ops.  On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the Ops vehemently contends that the vehicle was financed by the Ops which was being used by the complainant for earning his livelihood and there is no commercial use of the finance amount on the part of complainant.  Thus, before proceeding ahead, we would like to mention that there are the intricate questions of law and facts, which require elaborate evidence and the same is not possible in this time-bound proceedings.  In this context, we are fortified with the observations made in the case titled Love Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh 2007(4) CPJ page 305 (NC) wherein it has been observed by Hon’ble National Commission that Complicated issues involved, not adjudicable summarily-Dismissed with liberty to seek remedy in Civil Court and in the case reported as M/s. The Bills through its Proprietor Vs. PNB 1998(1) CPC page 150, Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh, wherein it has been mentioned that Complicated issues being involved, the matter needs to be decided by Civil Court-Complaint stands dismissed.

7.     In view of above discussion, we disposed off the complaint accordingly.  However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the civil court or court of competent jurisdiction, if so desired and in that eventuality, complainant will be entitled to the benefit of Section 14(2) of Limitation Act and the time taken during the pendency of this complaint shall be exempted.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt.24.07.2015.

                                                                (Jagmal Singh),

                                                                President.

                (Harisha Mehta),     (Rajbir Singh),       

                        Member.         Member.

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.16/13.

Date of instt.: 05.02.2013. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 24.07.2015.

Jarnail Singh s/o Mahender Singh R/o H.No.12k, W.No.10 Salem Pur, Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

Shri Ram Transport Finance Company, Opposite Bansal Hospital, Gupta Complex, Ambala Road, Kaithal through its Branch Manager.

..……..Opposite Party.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before:          Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.

                        Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Sh. O.P.Gulati, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. Deepak Seth, Advocate for the opposite party.

                       ORDER

(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he is owner in possession of heavy vehicle bearing No.HR-38J-9848 and the said vehicle was initially financed for sum of Rs.4 lacs by the Op.  It is alleged that at the time of taking loan from the Op, it was disclosed by the Op that the rate of interest will be @ 10% p.a. and in lieu of consideration provided by the Op, they have taken the signatures of complainant on blank and printed papers and the contents of which were also disclosed by them.  It is further alleged that the complainant is regularly paying the instalments of loan to the Op.  It is further alleged that the Op had charged excessive rate of interest and cost from the complainant on their own and that too against the terms and conditions of agreement as disclosed by the Op.  It is further alleged that the complainant several times requested the Op to provide a copy of agreement, other loan documents and copy of account statement just to settle his account finally but every time, the Op switched over the matter on one pretext or the other and just delayed the matter for charging extra amount.  It is further alleged that the complainant is ready and willing to finally settle his loan account with the Op as per law but for that purpose, the complainant is in dire need of certified copy of hypothecation agreement, true copy of account statement upto date.  It is further alleged that several times, the complainant demanded all these documents from the Op but they refused to supply the same.  This way, the Op is deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite party appeared before this forum and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; jurisdiction.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op.  On merits, it is stated that the Op never charged excessive rate of interest or cost from the complainant.  The interest was charged as per the loan agreement duly executed between the complainant and the Op.  The complainant was never refused to obtain the copy of loan agreement and the statement of account from the Op.  The other contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

3.     In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to C45 and closed evidence on 13.05.2015.  On the other hand, the Op tendered in evidence the documents Ex.R1 to R3 and closed evidence on 09.03.2015.     

4.     We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties. 

5.     Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant is owner in possession of heavy vehicle bearing No.HR-38J-9848 and the said vehicle was financed by the Ops.  Ld. Counsel for the complainant contends that at the time of taking loan from the Ops, it was disclosed by the Ops that the rate of interest will be @ 9.5% p.a. and in lieu of consideration provided by the Ops, they have taken the signatures of complainant on blank and printed papers.  The Ops had charged excessive rate of interest and cost from the complainant on their own and that too against the terms and conditions of agreement as disclosed by the Ops.  On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the Ops vehemently contends that the vehicle was financed by the Ops which was being used by the complainant for earning his livelihood and there is no commercial use of the finance amount on the part of complainant.  Thus, before proceeding ahead, we would like to mention that there are the intricate questions of law and facts, which require elaborate evidence and the same is not possible in this time-bound proceedings.  In this context, we are fortified with the observations made in the case titled Love Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh 2007(4) CPJ page 305 (NC) wherein it has been observed by Hon’ble National Commission that Complicated issues involved, not adjudicable summarily-Dismissed with liberty to seek remedy in Civil Court and in the case reported as M/s. The Bills through its Proprietor Vs. PNB 1998(1) CPC page 150, Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh, wherein it has been mentioned that Complicated issues being involved, the matter needs to be decided by Civil Court-Complaint stands dismissed.

7.     In view of above discussion, we disposed off the complaint accordingly.  However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the civil court or court of competent jurisdiction, if so desired and in that eventuality, complainant will be entitled to the benefit of Section 14(2) of Limitation Act and the time taken during the pendency of this complaint shall be exempted.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt.24.07.2015.

                                                                (Jagmal Singh),

                                                                President.

                (Harisha Mehta),     (Rajbir Singh),       

                        Member.         Member.