Complainant Dharminder Singh vides the present complaint has prayed for the passing of necessary orders to the opposite party namely: Shri Ram Transport Finance Company Limited (hereinafter called, 'the OP') to withdraw their illegal demand and to issue No Due Certificate/Clearance Certificate in his favour alongwith compensation and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.10,000/- to him, in the interest of justice.

 2.      The case of the complainant in brief is that he is poor man and having no source of income for livelihood, decided to buy one vehicle, so he approached the opposite party to purchase the TATA 2515 TC/48 for financial assistance. After completing all the formalities, the opposite party agreed to finance the vehicle. On 30.5.2008 the opposite party issued order for the delivery of TATA 2515  Model 2008 to him for Rs.11,91,634/- and out of which Rs.11,55,000/- amount was financed by the opposite party company. He also paid Rs.36,500/- for the purpose of insurance and Rs.1,40,000/- as margin/advance amount on 25.7.2008 which comes as Rs.1,76,500/-. He has further pleaded that he agreed to return the financed amount in 46 instalments of Rs.26,350/- each. The first instalment of Rs.26,500/- was paid on the spot. It was also agreed that Rs.36,634/- will be given as discount on the value of truck. The opposite party has also promised that insurance on the vehicle is already paid on 27.5.2008. All the instalments have been paid regularly by him and thereafter he demanded NOC and clearance from the opposite party, but instead of issuing NOC/NO Due Certificate, the opposite party is alleging false claims from the complainant. Even the opposite party has not deducted the discount amount of Rs.36,634/-, Ist instalment of Rs.26,000/- and rather claimed Rs.32,134/- against insurance amount even already paid Rs.36,000/- in the financed amount as insurance. He is not liable to pay Rs.36,000/- as insurance premium. On the other hand, the opposite party intentionally not deducted the amount of discount and Ist instalment from the total financed amount just to harass him. He is always ready to settle the accounts to get the NO Due Certificate, as he has already returned financed amount by way of regular instalment, so the opposite party is not entitled to claim amount from him. Due to the illegal act and conduct of the opposite party, he has suffered great monetary and pecuniary loss and has also suffered mental and physical harassment. Hence this complaint.

3.        Upon notice, the OP appeared and filed reply through its counsel taking the preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable; no cause of action arise to the complainant for filing the present complaint; complainant purchased and owned the vehicle for commercial purpose and for earning profits thus he is not a consumer as per its definition under the Act. Further he has not approached the Forum with clean hands and concealed the material facts from this Ld. Court; he has not paid the requisite fee as required by law and as such he is liable to pay exemplary costs for filing this false and frivolous complaint.; the jurisdiction of this Forum is barred to the complainant as the parties have agreed to raise all the issues and disputes before the Arbitrator as per the loan-cum-hypothecation agreement 6.6.2008 and then renewal agreement dated 17.9.2012 executed by the complainant and also challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the Ld. Forum and as such the present complaint is not maintainable. On merits, it was submitted that the complainant is a transporters having various commercial vehicles and the vehicle in dispute has also been purchased from PASCO Motors, Roop Nagar and got it hypothecated from the opposite party for a loan amount of Rs.10,15,000/- to be returned to the opposite party in 55 equal instalments with interest plus insurance and other charges agreed between the parties. Then the complainant had renewed his loan and hypothecated the vehicle bearing no.PB-06-H-8696 for a loan amount of Rs.6,50,000/- vide agreement dated 17.9.2012. The complainant had also agreed to return this loan amount with interest in 47 equal instalments plus Rs.2,78,745/- for final charges etc. It is pertinent to mention here that an amount of Rs.4,58,771.14 upto 19.9.2014 is due against the complainant and the complainant has filed the present complaint only to delay the payment of loan amount and interest thereon. It was also submitted that opposite party had never promised for the alleged discount of Rs.36,634/- etc. with the complainant. The insurance of the vehicle in question has been paid by the opposite party with the consent of the complainant, as such the complainant is very much liable to pay the insurance premiums to the opposite party in addition to the loan amount and interest thereon. All other averments made in the complaint have been vehemently denied and controverted and lastly, the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with costs.

4.    Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavits of complainant Ex.C1 and of Jang Singh Ex.C7, alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C6 and closed the evidence. 

5.       Counsel for the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Suman Singh, Credit Executive Ex.OP-1, alongwith other documents Ex.OP2 & Ex.OP3 and closed the evidence.

6.       We have carefully gone through the pleadings of both the parties; arguments advanced by their respective counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the purposes of adjudication of the present complaint.

7.      From the pleadings and evidence on record it is clear that the complainant sought financial assistance from the opposite party for the purchase of Tata 2515TC/48 and as such hired the services of the opposite party and hence is a consumer of the opposite party. The case of the complainant is that he has paid regular instalments and when he demanded NOC from the opposite party, the opposite party instead of issuing NOC/No Due Certificate is alleging false claims from him. The main dispute is with regard to the payment of insurance premium of Rs.36,634/- which as per the version of the opposite party is the liability of the complainant himself. It is the case of the opposite party that they never promised for the alleged discount of Rs.36,634/- etc. with the complainant. The opposite party further submitted that the premium for insurance of the vehicle in question was paid by them with the consent of the complainant, as such the complainant is liable to pay the insurance premiums to the opposite party in addition to the loan amount and interest thereon.

8.    From the above discussion, we find that this case cannot be decided in a summary manner on merits. However we prefer to dispose of this complaint with directions to the complainant to approach the opposite party within 15 days from the receipt of copy of orders alongwith all documentary proofs in his possession with regard to his payments and agreements etc. The opposite party is also directed to give all details of the payments received and due from the complainant if any within a period of 30 days from receipt of any communication from the complainant in this regard.

9.    Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, the file be consigned to the records.

              (Naveen Puri)

                                                                                   President   

Announced:                                                        (Jagdeep Kaur)        

March,03 2015                                                            Member

*MK*