Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 277.
Instituted on : 13.08.2013.
Decided on : 12.08.2016.
Jaiveer Singh s/o Sh. Dharam Singh resident of 692, VPO Karontha, Tehsil & District Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Shri Ram Transport Finance Company Limited through its Branch Manager Rohtak office situated at Rohtak Delhi Road, Near Sagar Villa, Rohtak(Financer of vehicle no.HR-46C-1688).
- Reliance General Insurance Company Limited through its General Manager, Rohtak(insurer of vehicle no.HR-46C-1688).
- United India Insurance Company Ltd., Through its Manager, Nehru Market-5, Circular Road, Opp. Civil Hospital Bhiwani Haryana 125022(Insurer of vehicle no.HR-46C-1688).
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.R.S.Chauhan, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Deepak Sethi Advocate for the opposite party No.1.
Sh.Gulshan Chawla Advocate for opposite party no.2.
Sh. Deepak Bhardwaj Advocate for opposite party no.3.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that the complainant had purchased the vehicle no.HR46C-1688 and got financed with opposite party No.1 and HPA was also entered with opposite party no.1. It is averred that the complainant had taken a loan of Rs.260000/- from the opposite party no.1 on dated 30.07.2010 for purchasing the above said vehicle and the loan was to be paid upto 05.08.2012 in total 25 instalments. It is averred that as per terms and conditions of the agreement the complainant has paid the above said loan amount to the opposite party No.1 in time upto 31.07.2012. It is averred that the complainant deposited the installments within time however Rs.320/- in last 16 installments has been received in excess by the opposite party no.1 from the complainant. It is averred that complainant got his vehicle insured with opposite party No.2 and 3 and informed the opposite party no.1 but the opposite party no.1 did not accept the above said bills and shows the due amount of above said insurances towards the complainant and demanding the amount of the insurance of above said period of two years which is illegal. It is averred that opposite party no.1 is not issuing the clearance certificate to the complainant while the complainant had paid the total amount of loan with interest to the opposite party no.1. It is averred that during the pendency of above noted complaint, the opposite party no.1 illegally and forcibly got snatched the above said vehicle of the complainant on 25.01.2013 and kept the same at Swastik Auto Mall Pvt. Ltd. Hissar from 25.01.2013 to 31.01.2013. It is averred that opposite party no.1 also illegally charged Rs.14000/- on account of installments, Rs.8000/- on account of team of muscleman, Rs.1400/- as parking charges from the complainant. It is averred that the act of opposite party no.1 is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such it is averred that opposite party No.1 may kindly be directed to issue clearance certificate to the complainant and to pay Rs.100000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment as well as Rs.62523/- charged illegally from the complainant.
2. On notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed their separate written statement. Opposite party no.1 in its reply has submitted that opposite party no.1 has not received any excess amount from the complainant. It is denied that complainant got his vehicle insured with the opposite party no.1 & 2. It is denied that complainant has repaid the total amount of loan with interest. An amount of Rs.21014/- alongwith interest and incidental charges are to be recovered from the complainant. It is averred that opposite party is legally entitled to recover the insurance premium from the complainant. It is averred that no amount was illegally charged from the complainant. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied.
3. opposite party no.2 in its reply has submitted that it is admitted that complainant insured the vehicle no.HR-46c-1688 from the answering opposite party and make the premium of Rs.10889/- and enjoyed the risk coverage for the policy period is correct. It is averred that the complainant has not sought any relief against the answering opposite party and the dismissal of complaint has been sought.
4. Opposite party no.3 in its reply has submitted that complaint of the complainant qua the answering opposite party may kindly be dismissed as there is no allegation against the answering opposite party and the answering opposite party is not liable for anything and the complainant also admits this fact as per the ingredients of his complaint.
5. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
6. Complainant in his evidence tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C30 and has closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite party No.1 tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A, document Ex.R3 and has closed his evidence. Ld. counsel for opposite party no.2 in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R2 and has closed his evidence. Ld. counsel for the opposite party no.3 has also closed his evidence vide his statement dated 20.08.2015.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
8. In the present case it is not disputed that the complainant had taken loan from the opposite party no.1 and the repayment of same is also not disputed. The grievance of the complainant is after the repayment of loan he requested the opposite parties to issue Loan Clearance Certificate/N.O.C. but the opposite party no.1 did not pay any heed to his requests and has also charged illegal charges on account of insurance of vehicle, on account of musclemen and parking charges. To prove his case complainant has placed on record copy of receipts and documents Ex.C2 to Ex. to Ex.C33.
9. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that from the documents placed on record it is not proved that the amount of installments or insurance was charged illegally from the complainant. In this regard reliance has been placed upon the law cited in I(2015)CPJ 244(NC) titled as Axis Bank Ltd. & Anr. Vs. S. Venugopal Naidu whereby Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi has held that: “Vehicle loan-default in payment of instelment-Seizure and sale of vehicle-Alleged deficiency in service-District Forum allowed complaint-State Commission dismissed appeal-Hence revision-Merely because OP exercised its legal right at the earliest without accepting request for grant of time, no deficiency can be imputed on part of OP while exercising legal right-Foras below erred in awarding compensation”. In view of the aforesaid law which is fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. It is also observed that all the payment has been made by the complainant and the vehicle has also been released by the opposite party no.1. As such opposite party no.1 is directed to issue the Clearance Certificate as well as Rs.3500/-(Rupees three thousand five hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
10. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
12.08.2016.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
………………………………….
Ved Pal, Member.
