Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/334/2021

Jasvinder S/o Ramesh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shri Ram City union Finance Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Rakesh Arora

20 Jul 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA

 

                                                                    Complaint No.:    334 of 2021.

                                                                   Date of institution:         28.10.2021.

                                                                   Date of decision: 20.07.2022

 

Jasvinder s/o Shri Ramesh, aged about 32 years, r/o Vikas Nagar, Ladwa, Tehsil Ladwa, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                                                …Complainant.

                                                      Versus

 

1. Shri Ram City Union Finance Limited, Plot No.d-6 & 7, 1^ST Floor, Kiran Garden, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059 through its authorized signatory branch at Kurukshetra.
2. Shri Ram City Union Finance Company Limited, near Virk Hospital, Kurukshetra through its authorized signatory.

                                                                                      ...Respondents.

 

 

CORAM:   NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.    

                   NEELAM, MEMBER.

 

Present:       Shri Rakesh Arora, Adv. for the complainant.

                   Shri Shekhar Kapoor, Advocate for the Opposite Parties.

 

ORDER:

 

1.                This is a complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

2.                It is alleged in the complaint that complainant had purchased TVS Radeon 2019, from TVS Motor Company bearing Registration No.HR97-9162 and same was financed by OPs and same was repayable in 35 installments of Rs.2439/- per month vide Loan Agreement No.CDKURTW1911270006. He was regularly paying the installments. On 18.10.2021 he parked his motorcycle outside his house at about 12:00 noon, in the meantime, some persons of OPs came to him and without putting any question forcibly snatched the vehicle from his possession. The OPs did not issue any notice regarding default of payment and seizing the vehicle, which is mandatory in nature. He went to the office of OPs and requested to handover the vehicle which was illegally seized and asked to give statements of account of the loan, but the OPs remained adamant not to receive the payment of installments. The above act and conduct of OPs amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practise, due to which, he suffered huge mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss as well, constraining him to file the present complaint against the OPs.

3.                Upon notice of complaint, OPs appeared and filed their written statement stating therein that the complainant approached the OPs to avail finance facility to purchase of vehicle in question. The OPs agreed and accordingly, an agreement for loan was entered into between the parties on 27.11.2019 and required amount to the tune of Rs.59990/- under the loan agreement and same was repaid in 35 monthly installments each of Rs.2439/- starting from 07.1.2020 to 07.05.2023. The complainant while continuing to use the vehicle started defaulting in the payment of monthly installments and failed to respond. The complainant is chronic financial defaulter and had not paid the installments in time as per terms and conditions of the agreement. The OPs requested so many times to the complainant in this regard, but all in vain. On 18.10.2021 complainant himself surrender his vehicle to official of OP No.2 and also signed the surrender letter. He also assured that he will come within one week and make the due payment with late payment charges and take back the vehicle, but he never come to OPs. The Op No.2 sent presale notice dated 13.11.2021 to the complainant. The aforesaid loan agreement between the parties contains an arbitration agreement under Clause 17, which envisages that the disputes arising between the parties under the term of loan agreement, shall be referred to an Arbitrator. There is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal the present complaint against them.

4.                In support to support his case, complainant tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3 and closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, OPs tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A along with documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-10 and closed the evidence.

6.                We have heard the learned counsel of the complainant and gone through the case file as well as written arguments submitted by the OPs.

7.                Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant had purchased TVS Radeon 2019, from TVS Motor Company bearing and same was financed by OPs and same was repayable in 35 installments of Rs.2439/- per month. The complainant was regularly paying the installments. On 18.10.2021 he parked his motorcycle outside his house at about 12:00 noon, in the meantime, some persons of OPs came to him and without putting any question forcibly snatched the vehicle from his possession. The OPs did not issue any notice regarding default of payment and seizing the vehicle, which is mandatory in nature. The complainant went to the office of OPs and requested to handover the vehicle which was illegally seized and asked to give statements of account of the loan, but the OPs remained adamant not to receive the payment of installments.

8.                The learned counsel for the OPs has argued that the complainant approached the OPs to avail finance facility to purchase of vehicle in question. The OPs agreed and accordingly, an agreement for loan was entered into between the parties on 27.11.2019 and required amount to the tune of Rs.59990/- under the loan agreement and same was repaid in 35 monthly installments each of Rs.2439/- starting from 07.1.2020 to 07.05.2023. The complainant while continuing to use the vehicle started defaulting in the payment of monthly installments and failed to respond. The complainant is chronic financial defaulter and had not paid the installments in time as per terms and conditions of the agreement. The OPs requested so many times to the complainant in this regard, but all in vain. On 18.10.2021 complainant himself surrender his vehicle to official of OP No.2 and also signed the surrender letter. He also assured that he will come within one week and make the due payment with late payment charges and take back the vehicle, but he never come to OPs. The Op No.2 sent presale notice dated 13.11.2021 to the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal the present complaint against them.

9.                There is no dispute between the parties that the complainant purchased the TVS Radeon from TVS Motor Company and got financed the same by OPs for a sum of Rs.59990/- which was repayable in 35 equal monthly installments of Rs.2439/- i.e. total repayable amount was Rs.91906/- (59990 principal + 31916 interest) and the commencement of first installment was 07.01.2020 till 07.05.2023.

10.              The grievance of the complainant that he was regularly paying the installments of said loan, but on 18.10.2021, the OPs forcibly snatched his vehicle from the outside of his house, whereas, on the other hand, the OPs contended that the complainant failed to pay some of the installments of the loan amount, even after issuing of various notices, reminders and verbal genuine demands from the OPs and lastly, he surrendered his vehicle with the OPs in order to fulfill his loan liabilities upon the OPs.

11.              From the Statements of Account Ex.R-10, it is evident that the complainant had paid only 13 installments out of total 35 installments and the last installment was made by the complainant on 07.11.2021. Thereafter as per complainant, the OPs on 18.10.2021, the OPs snatched his vehicle. But this contention of complainant has no force, because from the letter dated 10.10.2021 Ex.R-3, it is clear that the complainant himself gave his consent to the effect that he is unable to remit the monthly installments and as such, he voluntary surrender his vehicle bearing No.HR-97-9162 with his own wish/will. In this regard, the complainant contended that he had not given any written consent i.e. Ex.R-3 regarding surrendering his vehicle to the Ops, rather the OPs had taken his signatures on some blank papers and thereafter, might have converted the same into his above consent Ex.R-3. But it is pertinent to mention here that the complainant has failed to produce any documentary evidence/expert report in this regard to believe his above version that the OPs had taken his signatures on some blank papers. So, this contention of complainant has no force, hence rejected. After surrendering the vehicle by the complainant with the OPs, the OPs sent Pre Sale Notice dated 12.11.2021 Ex.R-4 to the complainant, asking him to pay the outstanding amount of Rs.71153/- within 15 days from the date of receipt of this letter/notice by the complainant, otherwise, the OPs will resale the said vehicle in order to recover the remaining loan amount, but despite that, the complainant had not paid the remaining outstanding loan amount till today. Furthermore, the complainant has also failed to produce any document to show that he had paid any due amount/installment to the OPs after surrendering the vehicle in question with the OPs. Moreover, perusal of case file shows, that along with the present complaint, the complainant filed an application for stay the resale proceedings of vehicle in question by the OPs and as such, vide order dated 18.11.2021, this Commission, at the initial stage of this complaint, has restrained the OPs for alienating the vehicle in question in any manner till further order from this Commission, but it is pertinent to mention here that after that stay order, till today, the complainant had not paid any amount/installment to the OPs against his outstanding loan amount, to show his bonafide intention regarding the loan in question, rather he remained adamant and had not ever contacted the OPs in this regard and then, in order to save his skin, he directly filed this complaint before this Commission on flimsy grounds. As such, the complainant has also not come to this Commission with clean hands.

12.              So, keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that after financing the vehicle in question by the complainant from the OPs, he had made payment of 13 installments out of total 35 installments i.e. Rs.31707/- against total financed loan amount of Rs.91906/- and thereafter, in order to fulfill his legal liabilities, he voluntarily surrendered his vehicle with the OPs on 18.10.2021. Hence, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of OPs by saying that the OPs had snatched his vehicle in question, rather he himself surrendered the same with the OPs with his own consent/will.

13.              In view of our above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and dismiss the same with no order as to costs. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record-room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission:

Dated:20.07.2022.

 

    

                                                                                       (Neelam Kashyap)               

                   (Neelam)                                                      President,

                   Member.                                                      DCDRC, Kurukshetra.           
 

 

 

 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, Stenographer.