Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/1246/2012

Jitender Singh S/o Prem Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Rajiv Khurana

30 Mar 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM YAMUNA NAGAR JAGADHRI

 

                                                                                    Complaint No. 1246 of 2012.

                                                                                    Date of Institution: 30.11.2012

                                                                                    Date of Decision: 30.03.2017

Jitender Singh aged about 30 years son of Sh. Prem Singh, resident of village Lal Chhapper, Sub Tehsil Radaur, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                          

                                                                                                                     ..Complainant

          Versus

Shri Ram Transport Finance Company Ltd. Near Lal Dwara, Jagadhri Road, Yamuna Nagar through its Branch Manager/ Office Incharge.

                                                                                                                    ..Respondent.

 

BEFORE:       SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG …………….    PRESIDENT

                        SH. S.C. SHARMA  …………………………MEMBER  

 

Present: Sh. Rajiv Khurana, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

              Sh. Ajay Shakti Goyal, Advocate, counsel for respondent.

 

ORDER  (ASHOK KUMAR GARG PRESIDENT)

1.                       The complainant has 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 complainant availed the service of the respondent (hereinafter respondent will be referred as OP Finance Company) and obtained a loan of Rs. 1,98,000/- for the purchase of vehicle TATA LTP 407 bearing registration No. HR65/0748 in the month of December, 2011. The complainant has to repay the loan amount of Rs. 1,98,000/- plus insurance charges to the Op Finance Company in installments but the official of the OP Finance Company illegally and unlawfully added the huge amount on account of processing charges. Prior to releasing the loan amount, the official of the OP Finance Company obtained the signatures of the complainant on various printed and blank papers. The complainant has already deposited a sum of Rs. 75,000/- approximately. On 01.11.2012, the complainant had gone to U.P. with the said vehicle but the officials of the OP alongwith some bad elements stopped the vehicle alongwith his vehicle near Dasna, District Ghaziabad and snatched the said vehicle of the complainant forcibly, illegally and unlawfully. The complainant objected the illegal act of the OP and their companions and requested to release the said vehicle of the complainant but all in vain. Hence, there is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP. Lastly, prayed for directing the Op Finance Company to release the vehicle in question immediately and not to adopt coercive method to recover any further amount and also not to misuse the blank cheques of complainant and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OP Finance Company appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable; complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint; complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint by his own act and conduct; parties are governed by the arbitration agreement; this Forum have no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint and on merit it has been admitted that complainant has availed the loan facility to the tune of Rs. 2,30,000/- from the Op Finance Company on 29.11.2011. The said loan amount includes Rs. 15,000/- as insurance charges and Rs. 1585/- as file charges, Rs. 1000/- as documentation charges, Rs. 2300/- as service charges and Rs. 12,305/- as amount of first installment and after making necessary deductions, an amount of Rs. 1,97,710/- was disbursed to the complainant. The loan amount was to be repaid with interest in 25 monthly installments out of which first installment was of Rs. 12305/-, second installment was of Rs. 13,559/- and rest of the installments were Rs. 12,305/- each and the said loan amount was to be cleared up to 05.12.2013. It has been further mentioned that in this way, complainant has availed the financial facility to the tune of Rs. 2,30,000/- on 29.11.2011 instead of 1,98,000/-, as alleged in the complaint. It has been further denied that complainant has deposited an amount of Rs. 75,000/- as alleged rather the complainant made the payment of Rs. 45,000/- to the OP Finance Company and still an amount of Rs. 3,09,940/- is outstanding as on 10.07.2013 against the complainant which includes interest, insurance charges for the period 29.11.2012 to 28.11.2013 and other charges. Rest contents of the complaint were denied and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     In support the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A and documents such as photo copy of permit as Annexure C-1, Receipts amounting to Rs. 5,000/-, Rs.6,000/-, Rs. 4000/-, Rs. 10,000/- , Rs. 4000/- and Rs. 10,000/-  (Total Rs. 45,000/-) as Annexure C-2 to C-8 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OP Finance Company tendered into evidence statement of account as Annexure R-1 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP Finance Company.  

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very carefully and minutely.

7.                     The only version of the complainant is that the official of the OP Finance Company illegally and forcibly had snatched the vehicle TATA LPT bearing registration No. HR-65-0748 from the complainant despite that the complainant was paying regular installments of the loan amount and huge amount on account of miscellaneous charges had been added in the account of complainant. So, the OP be directed to release the vehicle and not to charge illegal charges whereas on the other hand learned counsel for the OP Finance Company argued at length that the complainant has totally failed to deposit the installment amount despite so many requests. The complainant has deposited only Rs. 45,000/- with the OP Finance Company and an amount of Rs. 3,09,940/- is still outstanding against the complainant as on 10.07.2013 which includes interest and insurance charges for the period 29.11.2012 to 28.11.2013 and other charges but the complainant has totally failed to pay the same, hence, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP Finance Company and draw our attention towards the photo copy of account statement as Annexure R-1.

8.                     After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP Finance Company as the OP Finance Company has specifically mentioned in his written statement that an amount of Rs. 3,09,940/- as on 10.07.2013 was outstanding against the complainant and this version has not been rebutted by the complainant. Only some receipts Annexure C-2 to C-8 amounting to Rs. 45,000/- has been placed on file by the complainant. So, when the complainant has failed to repay the loan amount as per schedule of the installments agreed between the parties by the loan agreement then he is not entitled to get any relief. Moreover, if the officials of the OP finance Company had committed any illegal act by snatching the vehicle in question forcibly then the complainant was at liberty to take action as per law against the official of the finance company but no such evidence has been placed on file by the complainant whether he has taken any step or not against the official of the OP Finance Company. Further, the matter involved between the parties is relating to the account which cannot be decided in a summary way and to decide such type of cases Civil Court is the best platform.

9.                     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 at liberty to approach the Civil Court, if so advised. 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 in open court. 30.03.2017.          

                                                                                                (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                                 PRESIDENT

                                                                                                 DCDRF, YAMUNANAGAR

 

 

                                                                       

                                                                                                (S.C. SHARMA)

                                                                                                 MEMBER