Complaint No: 151 of 2019.

                                                              Date of Institution: 01.05.2019.

                                                                     Date of order: 20.03.2024.

Prem Chand Son of Sh. Dharam Chand, resident of Village Bhaini Bangar, P.O. Qadian Tehsil and District Gurdaspur.

                                                                                                                                              …........Complainant.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     

                                                                                   VERSUS

1.       Shri Ram Transport Finance Company Limited, Office at M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited, having its Branch Office at 1st Floor, Plot No. 8/20, Improvement Trust Colony, Scheme No. 1, Batala Road, Gurdaspur, through its Manager-cum-Authorized Signatory.

2.       Shri Ram Transport Finance Company Limited, 2nd Floor, Fortune Tower, Dhangu Road, Opposite Main Power House, Pathankot Tehsil and District Pathankot, through its Manager-cum-Authorized Signatory.

3.       Shri Ram Transport Finance Company Limited, having its Registered Office at 3rd Floor, Mookambika Complex No. 4, Lady Desika Road, Maylapore, Chennai – 600004, through its Managing Director-cum-Authorized Signatory.

4.       Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, E-8 RIICO Industrial Area, Sita Pura Jaipur, Rajasthan – 302022, through its Managing Director-cum- Authorized Signatory/General Manager.

                                                                                                                                      ….Opposite parties.

                                                               Complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Kavi Raj Saini, Advocate.

              For the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3: Sh.Vinod Harchand, Advocate.

              For the Opposite Party No.4: Sh.Sandeep Ohri, Advocate.  

Quorum: Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President, Sh.Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.

ORDER

Lalit Mohan Dogra, President.

          Prem Chand, Complainant (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against Shri Ram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. Etc. (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties).

2.       Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the complainant purchased an open Truck LPT 2515 TC bearing Registration No. PB-06-G-9614 and the said Truck was financed and insured by the OP No. 2 from the OP No. 4. It is pleaded that the office of Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. was earlier located at Pathankot i.e. the OP No. 2 and at the time of financing the same from the OP No. 4. It is pertinent to mention here that the employee of the OP No. 4 was sitting in the office of the OP No. 2 at the time of Insurance of the said Vehicle in question. Meaning thereby that, the vehicle in question is financed by the OP No. 2 and insured by the OP No. 4. Now the office of the OP No. 2 is also located at Gurdaspur i.e. the OP No. 1 and the OP No. 3 is registered office of the Finance Company. It is further pleaded that the complainant has purchased the Truck in question for earning his exclusively livelihood by way of self-employment. The complainant has purchased the vehicle in question from the opposite party No. 2 for approximate amount of Rs.12,00,000/- in the year 2016 and the opposite party also financed the vehicle in question from the OP No. 4 at that time and on dated 17.02.2017 the opposite parties No. 2 and 4 again financed the vehicle in question with a view to new finance scheme amounting to Rs.6,82,000/- after deducting the amount paid by the complainant to the opposite parties. The complainant has hired the services of the opposite parties and as such he is consumer of the opposite parties. It is further pleaded that the complainant was regularly paying the installments of loan amount to the opposite party No. 4 and the complainant paid Rs.1,72,000/- in installments out of Rs.6,82,000/-. The opposite parties issued receipt to the complainant only amounting to Rs.85,000/- and not issued receipts amounting to Rs.87,000/- to the complainant. The complainant many times approached the opposite parties for issuing the receipts of Rs.87,000/- received from the complainant by the opposite parties, but the opposite parties always put the matter with one pretext or the another, which is clear cut deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. It is further pleaded that due to some domestic problems, the complainant could not pay some installments in time as the complainant requested the opposite parties to issue the receipts of the payment deposited by him with the opposite parties, but the opposite parties put the matter with one pretext or the another, and the complainant was shocked and not paid the installments of the loan amount. Now the opposite parties have taken away his Truck with them. The complainant was always ready and still ready to deposit the installments of the loan amount when the opposite parties may issue the receipts of the amount paid by him to the opposite parties. It is further pleaded that at the time of taking possession of the vehicle in question, the opposite parties asked to the complainant that if the complainant will not pay the remaining loan amount with the opposite parties in that event the opposite parties will sell the vehicle in question to any other party for approximate amount of  Rs.6,00,000/- and the complainant will be free from entire outstanding remaining loan amount and the opposite parties will also issue NOC to the complainant and if the complainant will pay the loan amount then the opposite parties will return the vehicle in question to the complainant. It is further pleaded that at the time of taking possession of the vehicle in question forcibly, the opposite parties have not issued any receipt regarding receiving the vehicle in question, which they have not given to the complainant after repeated requests till date. This illegal act on the part of the opposite parties also is altogether illegal, wrong, against the rules and regulations, which is clear cut deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant is facing hardship since the opposite parties have also taken the possession of the said vehicle in question and also received installments from the complainant, but no needful has been done by the opposite parties rather make alleged wrong and illegal demand from the complainant. It is further pleaded that the complainant has approached the opposite parties and requested them to hand over the vehicle in question and also said that the complainant is ready to pay the remaining installments of the loan, but the opposite parties have not paid any heed to the legal and genuine request of the complainant. It is further pleaded that due to this illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties the complainant has suffered great loss and also suffered mental agony, Physical harassment and inconvenience. It is further pleaded that there is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

          On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and prayed that necessary directions may kindly be issued to the opposite parties to handover the Truck in question to the complainant as the complainant is always ready and willing to pay the remaining outstanding loan amount to the opposite parties and the opposite parties may be burdened with a cost of Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses and Rs.50,000/- for mental harassment and torture alongwith interest @ 18% P.A. in the interest of justice.

3.       Upon notice, the opposite parties No.1 to 3 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint and filing their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable and the complainant has not come to the Ld. Commission with clean hands. The complainant has concealed true material facts in the present complaint from the Ld. Commission. It is pleaded that the complainant has filed the present complaint in order to harass the officials of the answering opposite parties and to drag them in unwanted litigation and this. Ld. Commission has got no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint as there is an agreement of Arbitration between the parties, to raise all the disputes, issues and differences between the parties before the Arbitrator. This Ld. Commission has got no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint as the vehicle in question has been purchased by the complainant for commercial purpose and earning profits only. It is further pleaded that the vehicle in question has been got finance by the complainant from the opposite parties for commercial purpose and earning profits only. The vehicle in question was finance on dated 17.02.2017 Vide a loan No.GURDSO702170002 for an amount of Rs.6,82,000/- to be returned with interest to the opposite parties in 59 equal installments. The complainant is not consumer of the answering opposite parties as per the Consumer Protection Act as the vehicle in question is financed by the complainant for earning profits and commercial purpose only. The complainant had further employed the drivers to ply the vehicle in question. It is further pleaded that it is wrong that the complainant was regularly paying the installments of loan to the opposite parties. It is further pleaded that it is also wrong that the complainant has paid an amount of Rs.1,72,000/- to the opposite parties. The complainant had not deposited the alleged amount of Rs.87,000/- as such the question of issuing receipts for the alleged amount does not arise and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite parties. It is further pleaded that the complainant is a habitual defaulter in the payment of due loan installment and intentional defaulter in the payment of due loan installments. It is wrong that the opposite parties had taken away his truck with them. In fact, the complainant had himself surrendered the vehicle in question vide vehicle inventory and clerking sheet dated 12.03.2019 duly signed by the complainant and the complainant had further instructed the answering opposite parties to sell the same in open auction to adjust the sale amount of the said vehicle in his loan account. As such the vehicle in question was sold in the open auction as per the instruction of the complainant in his presence to the highest bidder for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- which was adjusted in the loan account of the complainant. It is further pleaded that the complainant had also agreed to pay the remaining due loan amount to the opposite parties, but he had defaulted in the same. As amount of Rs.7,56,960/- is still due against the complainant upto dated 05.04.2019. The complainant is not entitled for NOC as an amount of Rs.7,56,960/- is due against the complainant.

          On merits, the opposite parties No.1 to 3 have reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. In the end, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

4.       Upon notice, the opposite party No.4 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint and filing their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. It is pleaded that Shri Ram General Insurance Company / answering OP No. 4 has wrong made party to the present complaint. The contents of the complaint clearly show that the dispute is between the complainant and Shri Ram Transport Finance Company (i.e. the opposite parties No. 1 to 3). As per the contents of complaint that the complainant is alleging that he got his vehicle financed from the Shri Ram Transport Finance Co. took his vehicle and sold it. It is further pleaded that Shri Ram General Insurance Co. / answering OP No. 4 has no link with the finance company and as such the matter not pertains to the Shri Ram General Insurance Company. It is further pleaded that the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed against the answering OP No. 4 / Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd.

          On merits, the opposite party No.4 has reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. In the end, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

5.       Learned counsel for the complainant has filed Self-Attested affidavit of Prem Chand, (Complainant) alongwith Self-Attested documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-11.

6.       Learned counsel for the opposite parties No.1 to 3 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Satish Kumar, (Special Power of Attorney of M/s. Shri Ram Transport Finance Co. Ltd., Gurdaspur) as Ex.OP-1 alongwith other documents as Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-14 alongwith reply.

7.       Learned counsel for the opposite party No.4 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Amandeep Sharma, (Authorized Signatory of Shri Ram Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd., Jaipur) as Ex.OP-4/1 alongwith reply.

8.       Rejoinder filed by the complainant.

9.       Written arguments not filed by both the parties.

10.     Counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant had purchased truck which was financed by opposite party No.2 and was insured with opposite party No.4. It is further argued that the amount financed by opposite party No.2 was Rs.6,82,000/-. It is further argued that complainant had paid Rs.1,72,000/- in installments out of total payable amount of Rs.6,82,000/-. It is further argued that opposite parties had issued receipt for only Rs.85,000/- further no receipt was issued for remaining amount of Rs.87,000/-. It is further argued that due to some domestic problem complainant could not pay the installments but the opposite parties forcibly snatched the truck inspite of the fact that complainant had assured to pay the due amount. It is further argued that thereafter opposite parties assured the complainant that they will sell the truck for Rs.6,00,000/- and the adjust the amount in the payable loan amount and NOC shall be issued accordingly. It is further argued that complainant is ready to pay the remaining amount as such opposite parties No.1 to 3 be directed to hand over the truck of the complainant.

11.     On the other hand counsel for the opposite parties No.1 to 3 has argued that complainant is habitual defaulter and was unable to pay the installments and had himself surrendered the vehicle in question vide vehicle inventory and clerking sheet dated 12.03.2019 and had given instructions to the opposite parties No.1 to 3 to sell the vehicle and adjust the amount in the loan account. It is further argued that thereafter truck was sold to the highest bidder for Rs.3,00,000/- and amount of Rs.7,56,960/- is still due against the complainant upto 05.04.2019. Accordingly, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties No.1 to 3.

12.     Counsel for the opposite party No.4 has argued that opposite party No.4 insurance company has nothing to do with the dispute between the complainant and the finance company and as such complaint is liable to be dismissed.

13.     We have heard the Ld. counsels for the parties and gone through the record.

14.     To prove his case complainant has placed on record his affidavit, copy of vehicle inventory and clerking sheet Ex.C1, copy of R.C. Ex.C2, copy of summary of loan Ex.C3, copies of permit Ex.C4 and Ex. C5, copy of insurance policy Ex.C6, copy of permit Ex.C7, copies of loan receipt Ex.C8 to Ex.C11 whereas opposite parties No.1 to 3 has placed on record affidavit of Satish Kumar Retainer Advocate Ex.OP-1, copy of hypothecation cum loan agreement Ex.OP-14, copy of vehicle inventory and clerking sheet Ex.OP-2, copy of notice Ex.OP-3, copies of postal receipts Ex.OP-4 and Ex.OP-5, copy of notice Ex.OP-6, postal receipts Ex.OP-7 and Ex.OP-8, copy of demand notice Ex.OP-9, copies of postal receipts Ex.OP-10 and Ex.OP-11, copy of statement of account Ex.OP-12, copy of power of attorney Ex.OP-13. Opposite party No.4 has placed on file affidavit of Amandeep Sharma authorized signatory Ex.OP-4/1.

15.     It is admitted fact that complainant had purchased truck bearing No.PB-06-G-9614 which was financed by opposite party No.2 on 17.02.20217 vide loan application No.GURDSO702170002 for an amount of Rs.6,82,000/-. It is further admitted fact that possession of the vehicle has been taken by the opposite party No.2 on 12.03.2019. It is further admitted fact that truck repossessed by the opposite party No.2 has been sold in auction. The only issue for adjudication before this Commission is whether the complainant is entitled to possession of the vehicle alongwith NOC and compensation.

16.     Perusal of affidavit placed on record by the complainant shows that complainant has himself admitted to have deposited amount of Rs.1,72,000/- but has placed on record receipts for only Rs.85,000/- and has not been able to explain why the remaining amount was deposited without receipt and if the receipt was not issued by the receiving authority why the complainant failed to lodge the complaint with higher authorities of the opposite parties No.1 to 3. Perusal of Ex.C1 vehicle inventory and clerking sheet shows that vehicle has been surrendered by the himself by himself signing the said clerking sheet. As such  we have no hesitation in holding that the complainant himself authorized the opposite parties to sell the truck which was accordingly sold by the opposite parties for Rs.3,00,000/- and the said amount has been adjusted in the loan amount of the complainant on 25.03.2019. Moreover, it is not the case of the complainant that the truck was of higher value or that vehicle has been sold at some less market price and proper procedure was not adopted during the auction. We are of the view that since the complainant himself admits that vehicle has been sold in auction as such the relief regarding possession of the vehicle has already become infructuous and accordingly since the vehicle has been sold by the opposite party No.2 after taking possession of the vehicle for non-payment of the loan amount, as such complainant has totally failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

17.     Accordingly, present complaint being without merit is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.

18.     The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.

19.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. File be consigned.                                                                                                                                                               

            (Lalit Mohan Dogra)

                                                                                      President.  

Announced:                                                   (B.S.Matharu)

March 20, 2024                                                     Member.

*YP*