Haryana

Karnal

775/2011

Shashi Pal S/o Jyoti Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh. N.K. Zak

27 Oct 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.  

                                                               Complaint No.775 of 2011

                                                             Date of instt.: 04.11.2011

                                                               Date of decision:27.10.2016

 

Shashi Pal son of Shri Jyoti Ram, resident of Matak Majri, Banso Gate, Karnal, Tehsil and District Karnal.

 

                                                                   ……..Complainant.

                                      Vs.

1. Shri Ram Transport Finance Company Ltd. Sector-3, G.T. Road, National Highway no.1, Karnal, through its Manager.

 

                                                                   ………… Opposite Party.

 

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-       Sh. N.K.Zak Advocate for the complainant.

                     Sh. Anil Kundu Advocate for the Opposite party.

 

 ORDER:

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act 1986, on the averments that he raised a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- on 7.7.2008 for purchasing vehicle no.HR-38-F-0530 for his livelihood. The loan was to be repaid in 30 installments of Rs.8200/-each. One installment had to be paid in advance and the same was duly paid at the time of raising the loan. He had also issued 5 blank cheques to the opposite party from his Post Office Savings Account no.06642151006209. He deposited Rs.2,50,980/-. Last amount of Rs.40,000/- was deposited by him in March, 2011. Thereafter, he asked the opposite party to return the blank cheques and issue ‘No Dues Certificate’. The opposite party postponed the matter on one pretext or the other. On 29.10.2011, the officials of the opposite party visited his house and raised demand of Rs.1,50,000/-. He asked for the details of the amount due, but no details were given. Such acts and conduct on the part of the opposite party amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, due to which he suffered physical and mental harassment.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite party, who put into appearance and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that this forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint; that the complaint is not legally maintainable; that the complainant is estopped from filing the complaint by his own act and conduct and that the complainant has no cause of action to file the complaint.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that agreement of loan was executed between the parties and as per the said agreement each installment was to be paid on 25^th of every month and in case of delay, the complainant was to be burdened with penalty. The complainant failed to repay the installment on due date and as such penalty amount was debited in his account. The complainant did not maintain financial discipline. Whatever amount has been paid by him, the same has been credited in his account. An amount of Rs.1,49,879/-was outstanding in his loan account, which was not paid. Therefore, clearance certificate could not be issued. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

3.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex. C1 and documents Ex.C1 to C30 have been tendered.

4.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite party, affidavit of Raj Kumar Saini Ex.OP1/A and documents Ex.OP1/B and Ex.OP1/C have been tendered.

5.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

6.                Factum of obtaining the loan of Rs.2,00,000/- by the complainant from opposite party for purchasing vehicle is not in dispute. The said loan amount was to be repaid in 30 equal installments of Rs.8200/- each. As per the case of the complainant he had deposited Rs.2,50,980/-in his account upto March, 2011 and thereafter asked for return of the cheques given to opposite party at the time of raising loan and issuance of ‘No Dues Certificate’, but the opposite party raised further demand of Rs.1,50,000/-. The opposite party has not disputed about the payments deposited by the complainant, but has submitted that an amount of Rs.1,49,879/-was outstanding in the loan account of the complainant and without payment thereof ‘No Dues Certificate’ could not be issued. Thus, the material question which arises for consideration is whether the complainant had repaid the entire loan amount alongwith interest thereon as per terms and condition of the agreement or some amount was outstanding in his loan account on the date of filing the complaint.

7.                Learned counsel for complainant laid emphasis on the contention that the opposite party debited the amount for getting the vehicle insured illegally in the account of the complainant despite the fact that the complainant got insured the vehicle at his own level by making payment from his own pocket and if the amount of insurance so added alongwith interest thereon in the account is deducted, then no amount is due towards the complainant. It has further been canvassed that even as per loan agreement there was no condition that the opposite party would get the vehicle insured and debit the amount in the loan account of the complainant.

8.                The arguments advanced by learned counsel for the complainant cannot be accepted being devoid of force. It is worth pointing out at the very outset that the complainant has not produced any document worth the name on record, which may show that he got the vehicle insured at his own level by making payment of the premium out of his own pocket. No copy of insurance policy or other document has been produced in support of such plea. Moreover, such specific plea neither has been raised in the complaint nor in the affidavit of the complainant. A perusal of the copy of the Loan Hypothecation Agreement Ex.OP1/C shows that as per condition no.3.8 the borrower shall keep the hypothecated assets fully and comprehensively insured and on default of the borrower to keep the hypothecated insured there assets would be got insured by the opposite party. Thus, it is quite clear that the opposite party could get the vehicle insured and debit the amount of premium in the loan account of the complainant in case the complainant failed to get his vehicle insured. The complainant has not been able to prove that he got the vehicle insured at his own level. Therefore, under such circumstances, there was no illegality on the part of the opposite party in getting the vehicle insured and debiting the premium amount in the loan account. Learned counsel for the complainant could not point out any other illegality, error or any defect in the statement of account Ex.OP1/B produced by the opposite party. Therefore, we have no hesitation in observing that the complainant has failed to establish any deficiency in service  or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.

9.                As a sequel to the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the present complaint. Therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 27.10.2016

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member