Haryana

Kaithal

CC/65/2022

Suraj Bhan - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh.Ramjeet Arora

21 Mar 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                 Complaint Case No.65/2022.

                                                 Date of institution: 25.03.2022.

                                                 Date of decision:21.03.2023.

Suraj Bhan age about 62 years S/o Sh. Kasturi Lal R/o Khurana Road, Nanak Puri Colony, Kaithal.

 

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Shri Ram City Union Finance Ltd., Dhand Road, Kaithal through its Branch Manager.
2. Branch Manager, Shri Ram City Union Finance Ltd., Kaithal.
3. Shri Ram City Union Finance Ltd. having its Registered Office at No.123, Angappa Naicken Street, Chennai-600001 through its Manager.

….Respondents.

Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

CORAM:     SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

 

Present:     Sh. Ranjeet Arora, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Respondents No.1 & 2 exparte.

                Respondent No.3 given-up.

               

ORDER

NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Suraj Bhan-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the respondents.  

                    In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant had availed a personal loan of Rs.50,000/- from the respondents vide agreement No.CDKAIPL1910160015 dt. 16.10.2019 in his own name.  It is alleged that the complainant had to pay total 24 installments and monthly installment was fixed as Rs.3040/-.  It is further alleged that the complainant had paid all the installments to the respondents.  After completion of above-said installments, the complainant approached the respondents to issue No Objection Certificate but the respondents did not issue the NOC to the complainant, in fact respondent No.1 again deducted one more installment of Rs.3040/- from the complainant’s account without his consent and knowledge.  It is further alleged that the complainant requested the respondents several times to issue No Objection Certificate but the respondents did not do so and did not resolve the grievances of complainant.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of respondents and prayed for acceptance of complaint.   

2.             Upon notice, the respondents No.1 & 2 did not appear and opted to proceed against exparte vide order dt.02.05.2022 of this commission.  Respondent No.3 was given-up by ld. counsel for the complainant vide his separate statement recorded on 24.08.2022.   

3.             The complainant tendered in evidence affidavits Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C9 and thereafter, closed the evidence.     

4.             We have heard the learned counsel for complainant and perused the case file carefully and minutely.

5.             Ld. counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant had availed a personal loan of Rs.50,000/- from the respondents vide agreement No.CDKAIPL1910160015 dt. 16.10.2019.  It has been argued that the complainant had to pay total 24 installments and monthly installment was fixed as Rs.3040/-.  It has been further argued that the complainant had paid all the installments to the respondents but the respondents did not issue the NOC to the complainant.  It has been further argued that the respondent No.1 deducted one more installment of Rs.3040/- from the complainant’s account without his consent and knowledge.

6.             During the course of arguments, ld. counsel for the complainant has drawn our attention towards statement of account for the period w.e.f. 01.10.2019 to 22.01.2022 bearing AGOGP account No.180110100008814 relating to complainant issued by Union Bank of India, Kaithal as per Annexure-C1 vide which it is clear that total 23 installments of Rs.3040/- each were got deducted by the respondent No.1.  It is also clear from Annexure-C2 that an amount of Rs.6080/- was deposited by the complainant in cash on 07.01.2021 with the respondent No.1.  So, in view of above-said documentary evidence produced by the complainant, it is clear that the respondent No.1 has deducted one extra installment of Rs.3040/- from the complainant and also did not issue no objection certificate to the complainant.    

                The complainant has supported his versions by way of filing affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documentary evidence Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C9.  The complainant has testified all the contents in the affidavit so set out by him in the complaint.  Whereas, on the other hand, respondents No.1 & 2 are proceeded against exparte as they did not appear in the court even one time.  So, the evidence adduced by the complainant goes unrebutted and unchallenged against the respondents No.1 & 2.  Hence, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of respondents No.1 & 2.      

7.             Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, the present complaint is accepted exparte against respondents No.1 & 2 with cost and dismissed against respondent No.3 as respondent No.3 was given-up by ld. counsel for the complainant vide his separate statement recorded on 24.08.2022.  The respondents No.1 & 2 jointly and severally are directed to refund the amount of Rs.3040/- and to issue no objection certificate to the complainant within 45 days from today.  The respondents are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation on account of physical harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges to the complainant. 

8.             In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against respondents-OPs No.1 & 2 shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as non-compliance of court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

Dt.:21.03.2023.

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.