Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/193/2010

Gulzar Ali S/o.Ali Mohd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shri Ram Transport Finance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Parveen Sharma

20 May 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA   NAGAR

                                                                                             Complaint No. 193  of  4.3.2010

                                                                                             R.B.R. No.09 of  10.06.2015.

                                                                                             Date of decision: 20.05.2016.

Gulzar Ali son of Shri Ali Mohamad, Resident of Village Khandara, Tehsil Bilaspur, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         …Complainant.

                                    Versus

 

1. Shri Ram Transport Finance Company Limited having registered office at 123, Angabba Naicken Street, Chennai.
2. Shri Ram Transport Finance Company Limited, Opposite Raghunath Mandir, Near Lal Dwara, Jagadhri Road, Yamuna Nagar, through its Branch Manager.
3. M/s Jagdambey Trading Center, Panjlasa Road, Naraingarh, District Ambala (Authorized Dealer of Sonalika Tractor).

 

                                                                                                                                                                       … Respondents.

                       

BEFORE          SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: None for complainant.   

              Sh. Ajay Shakti Goyal, Advocate, counsel for respondents No.1 & 2.

              Respondent No. 3 already ex-parte. 

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Gulzar Ali filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. 

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that the complainant purchased a tractor Sonalika 750 from respondent No.3( hereinafter referred as OP No.3) after obtaining financial assistance of Rs. 3,00,000/- from respondents No. 1& 2 (hereinafter referred as OPs No.1 & 2) which was repayable in 35 monthly installments w.e.f. 31.08.2009 at the time of obtaining advance, OP No.2 had obtained one advance installment of Rs. 12,533/- in cash from the complainant and in addition to this a sum of Rs. 15000/- more were received in cash from the complainant as file charges and Rs. 8,000/- in cash as insurance premium. Besides this, the Op No.2 had also obtained 8 blank signed cheques from the complainant towards installments. The Ops had undertaken to deliver the necessary papers for registration of the tractor in the name of complainant and for regarding the hypothecation entry but the complainant was not given the papers inspite of his repeated requests and visits. In this way, the complainant could not be got registered his tractor. Finding no alternative, the complainant requested the Op No.2 to calculate the actual amount of loan outstanding till date and to receive the entire outstanding loan amount after adjusting amount already paid but the Op No.2 remained adamant and the complainant was told that he will have to pay a sum of Rs. 4,38,659/- which was totally wrong and illegal as the Ops were entitled only to receive the actual amount due till the date of payment. Now, the OP No.2 has issued a notice dated 20.1.2010 asking the complainant to deposit a sum of Rs. 4,38,659/- whereupon the complainant requested the Ops not to charge the same but the OP No.2 flatly refused. Hence this complaint praying therein that Ops No.1 & 2 be directed to receive the entire outstanding loan amount in respect of tractor Sonalika 750 purchased from OP No.3 and further to issue the necessary papers relating to the registration and also to return the 8 blank cheques and to pay the compensation as well as litigation expenses.

3.                     Upon notice Ops appeared and filed its written statement separately. Ops No.1 & 2 filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable as the vehicle in question was being used for commercial purpose; parties are governed by Arbitration Agreement; complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the true and material facts. In fact complainant is a chronic defaulter and used to avoid the payment of installments amount from the very beginning of the loan account. The complainant has paid only single installment to the Ops Company i.e. rs.19050/- on 03.09.2009, after that date and till the filing of reply he has not paid even a single penny to the Ops Company and the present complaint has been filed by twisting the facts only. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed qua Ops No.1 & 2 outrightly and on merit it has been admitted that an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- was financed to the complainant which was repayable in 35 monthly installments of amounting to Rs. 12533/- w.e.f. 31.08.2009. However, complainant paid only Rs. 19050/- on 03.09.2009 and an amount of Rs. 4,19,609/- is still outstanding in his loan account as on 31.05.2010. Lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint being no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of Ops No.1 & 2.

4.                     OP No.3 filed its written statement and after filing the written statement proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 25.08.2015. OP No.3 filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complainant has no locus standi to file and maintain the present complaint; this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint; complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and has concealed the true and material facts from this forum; complaint is not maintainable; estopped from filing the present complaint; complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties and on merit it has been submitted that question of delivering the documents/papers to the complainant arises only when the complainant clear his outstanding dues regarding the purchase of tractor and even  till date the complainant has to pay Rs. 2,10,000/- to the OP No.3. Complainant is a fraudulent person, even a cheque bearing No. 989211 dated 12.04.2010 for a sum of Rs. 2,10,000/- drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce Branch Kaleamb District Ambala issued by the complainant has also been dishonoured and a legal notice under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act to this effect has already been sent to the complainant. All these facts have been concealed from the Forum. Hence, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief and complaint qua OP No.3 is liable to be dismissed.

5.                     To prove the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX, affidavit of Som Deen son of Munshi village Sadikpur as Annexure CY, affidavit of Ranbir Singh Lambardar as Annexure CZ and document such as Photo copy of tractor purchase bill as Annexure C-1 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

6.                     On the other hand, counsel for Ops No.1 & 2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Vachiter Singh as Annexure RW1/A and document such as Account statement w.e.f. 29.08.2009 to 25.08.2015 as Annexure R-1 and closed the evidence on behalf of Ops No.1 & 2.

7.                     We have heard the learned counsel for OPs No.1 & 2 and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

 8.                    After hearing, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of Ops as the complainant has totally failed to adduce any evidence and convince this forum that from which angle there was any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of Ops. We have perused the account statement filed by the Ops Annexure R-1 from which it is clearly evident that only an amount of rs. 19050/- has been paid by the complainant on 03.09.2009 and after that not a single penny has been paid by the complainant. As per account statement (Annexure R-1) an amount of Rs. 15,89,969.10 is outstanding against the complainant as on 25.08.2015. Even from the perusal of the written statement filed by OP No.3 it is also evident that an amount of Rs. 2,10,000/- is also outstanding against the complainant and cheque issued by the complainant on 12.04.2010 for the said amount was dishonoured. To controvert the version of the Ops no cogent evidence has been filed by the complainant. Mere filing the affidavit of near and dear two persons Annexure CY and CZ and copy of purchase bill Annexure C-1, it does not mean that the complainant has discharged his onus to prove that there is any deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of Ops whereas from the perusal of the documents i.e. account statement Annexure R-1 tendered by the Ops, it is clearly established that complainant himself is at fault. However, the matter involves relating to the accounts and as per version of the complainant that he has paid so many installments to the Ops which can be proved by elaborate evidence by cross examine of the official of the OPs and cannot be decided in a summary nature.

9.                     In the circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that the complainant has totally failed to prove his case that there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, hence, we have no option except to dismiss the complaint of complainant.

10.                   Resultantly we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. However, the complainant is granted liberty to approach the appropriate Court, if he so desires. Exemption of time spent before this Forum is granted in terms of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Luxmi Engineering Works vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute (1995)III SCC page 583. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced:20.05.2016          

                                                                                                ( ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                           PRESIDENT

 

 

 

                                                                                          (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                           MEMBER