BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.389/11.

Date of instt.: 18.10.2011. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 13.07.2015.

Jaswinder Singh son of Randhir Singh, resident of Village Theh Newal, Post Office Peedal, Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

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

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

..……..Opposite Parties.

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 parties.

                       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-38G-5281 and the said vehicle was financed by the Ops.  It is alleged 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.  It is further alleged that the complainant had approximately re-paid in instalments Rs.4,20,800/- to the Ops after sanction of loan of Rs.4,50,000/-.  It is further alleged that only Rs.4,28,000/- was given by the Ops as loan amount.  It is further alleged that 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.  It is further alleged that the complainant several times requested the Ops to provide a copy of agreement and other loan documents and copy of account statement just to settle his account finally but every time the Ops switched over the matter on one pretext or the other and just delayed the matter for charging extra amount.  This way, the Ops are deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite parties 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 Ops.  On merits, it is stated that it is absolutely wrong to suggest that the signatures of the complainant were taken on blank and printed papers.  It is further stated that the complainant is a chronic defaulter and he never adhered to the terms and conditions of the loan agreement.  The other contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

3.     In support of their case, both the parties led their evidence in the shape of affidavits and documents.  

4.     We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.

5.     We have perused the complaint & reply thereto and also have gone through the evidence led by the parties.

6.     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-38G-5281 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 complainant had approximately re-paid in instalments Rs.4,20,800/- to the Ops after sanction of loan of Rs.4,50,000/-.  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.  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.13.07.2015.

                                                                (Jagmal Singh),

                                                                President.

                (Harisha Mehta),     (Rajbir Singh),       

                        Member.         Member.