Order by:

Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President

1.       The complainants have filed the instant complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019  on the allegations that in the month of July, 2015 the representative of the Opposite Parties approached the Complainants and asked to avail the  loan against property from the Opposite Parties and also told that the Opposite Parties is a very good finance company and under the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India, they provide the loan to the customers on reasonable rates  as prescribed by Reserve Bank of India. The representative of the opposite Parties allured to obtain the  loan against the property at a very nominal rate of interest and without any hidden or incidental charges and on the allurement and believing the agents of the Opposite Parties, the complainant agreed and Opposite Parties obtained the loan from the Opposite Parties against the property. Accordingly, the Complainant  on 29.07.2015 obtained the loan from the Opposite Parties amounting to Rs. 22 lakhs against the property of the Complainants firm. At the time of  availing the loan by the Complainant from the Opposite Parties, the representative of the Opposite Parties took the signatures of the Complainant on so many blank papers and also took the blank signed cheques for security purposes of the loan amount advanced by them to the Complainant and also got the sale deed of the complainant firm namely Bhuller Steel Chugaths House, Kot Ise Khan, District Moga and told the Complainant that at the time of clearing the liability, said documents and cheques will be returned to the Complainant and the interest as prevailing as per the nationalized bank will be charged, but no copy of terms and conditions or agreement was ever served  to the Complainant. As per the RBI guidelines and regulations, the Opposite Parties are bound to provide the fair services to the complainants and as such the complainants are the consumer  of the Opposite Parties as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.  The complainants have been regularly paying the installments of the loan to Opposite Parties worth Rs.62,336/- per month each without any default through its bank account and in this way, the Complainants have paid the  loan amount of Rs.33,43,954/- alongwith interest. It is pertinent to mention over here that as on 24.9.2019 the balance amount of Rs.86,526/- remains balance against the Complainants and  on the asking of the Opposite Parties, the complainants also paid Rs.55,000/- in the month of December, 2019 and Rs.10,000/- as on 30.09.2020 and again Rs.10,000/- on 03.10.2020 to the Opposite Parties  and now the amount 11,526/- remains due towards the Complainant. After the repayment of the loan amount, the complainant raised the demand from the Opposite Parties for issuing the ‘No Due Certificate’ after receiving the balance amount and also to return the documents/ security cheques as well as sale deed  for which the Opposite Parties are legally bound to issue the said documents. The  complainants have made so many requests to the Opposite Parties to issue the requisite documents after receiving the balance amount, but initially, the Opposite Parties lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other and at last, the complainant is surprised to  note that the Opposite Parties raised a demand of Rs.6,81,043.31 paisa as on 24.09.2019 from the complainant against the loan account mentioning the alleged hidden charges of Rs.53,000/- on account of bouncing charges, Rs.1,94,874/- on account of overdue interest, Rs.2986.01 paisa  on account of broken period interest, Rs.3,38,115/- on account of principal outstanding, Rs. 6782/- on account pf pre payment charges for which the Opposite Parties have no right to demand such illegal amount. Now to charge the aforementioned hidden charges which are in lakhs, the Opposite Parties are bent upon and threatening to sell the property of the firm of the Complainants forcibly with the muscle powers for which they have no right or title to do so.  The complainant approached the Opposite Parties time and again  to issue the ‘No Due Certificate’ and to return the blank documents and cheques which were obtained by them at the time of sanctioning the loan to the Complainant after obtaining the balance genuine amount and  not to charge any hidden charges, but  the Opposite Parties  flatly refused to admit the rightful claim of the complainant, as such, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

1. To direct the Opposite Parties to issue the ‘No Due Certificate’ after receiving the genuine legal amount and for issuance of directions to Opposite Parties not to demand the illegal/ hidden charges forcibly, arbitrarily and without due course of law  and to return the blank signed documents/ security cheques  as well as sale deed, which were taken at the time of granting the loan.

 b)     The amount of Rs.5,00,000/- be allowed to be paid by the opposite parties on account of compensation due to mental tension and harassment caused by the complainant.

c)       The cost of complaint amounting to Rs.20,000/- may please be allowed.

d)      And any other relief to which this Hon’ble Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Moga deem fit may please be granted to the Complainant,  in the interest of justice and equity.       

2.       Opposite Parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing  the written version  on the ground inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.  In fact, on 29.07.2015 the complainants availed the loan facility of Rs.22 lakhs which was to be repaid alongwith interest @ 23.02% in monthly instalments starting w.e.f. 10.09.2015 to 10.08.2020 with monthly instalment of Rs.62,336/-, but the complainant remained default in making the  instalments and as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the complainant has to pay overdue interest @ 3% per month on the unpaid instalments. Not only this, the complainant is also liable to pay Rs.1000/- on each dishonoured cheque. Not only this, the complainant  has also to pay the pre closure charges as mentioned in the schedule. Further,  due to the Covid-19, the moratorium of 6 months has also been granted to the account of the complainant and hence six months get extended to 66 months. But the track record of the complainant was not remained as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. On several occasions i.e. 62 occasions, the cheques were  bounced and in all, the complainants paid only 53 instalments in full and portion 54^th instalments. In all, the complainant paid Rs.33,61,954/- towards monthly instalments and till date, an amount of Rs.7,16,653/- is due and by the complainant. The complainant can not seek the ‘No Due Certificate’ or for return of documents unless the said amount is cleared in full. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.   On merits also, Opposite Parties took up the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections. Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.

3.       In order to  prove  their  case, the complainants have tendered into evidence  affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith copies of documents i.e. copy of aadhar card of complainant No.1 Ex.C2, copy of aadhar card of complainant No.2 Ex.C3, copy of statement Ex.C4, copy of letter Ex.C5 and Ex.C6, copy of demand notice Ex.C7 and closed their evidence.

4.       On the other hand,  to rebut the evidence of the complainant,  Opposite Parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Gurpreet Singh  Ex.Ops1 alongwith copies of documents i.e. copy of loan agreement Ex.Ops2,  copy of power of attorney Ex.Ops3, copy of statement Ex.Ops4  and closed the evidence on behalf of Opposite Parties.

5.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties, and  gone through the documents placed  on record.

6.       During the course of arguments, both the ld.counsel for the Complainant as well as Opposite Parties  have mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint as well as in written reply respectively.   

7.       Now, the first and foremost issue before this Commission is whether the complainants are consumer of the Opposite Parties or not?

 8.      In order to find out answer to this issue, Ex.C4 is an important document. As per Ex.C4 which is statement of account, which is placed by the complainants themselves in their evidence clearly proves that the complainants namely Gurmeet Singh and Gulzar Singh have availed the loan from Opposite Parties in the capacity of proprietor of M/s.Bhullar Steel Chughats House, thus it clearly proves that they are carrying on commercial activity. In this complaint, they have nowhere mentioned that they are carrying on commercial activity exclusively for earning their livelihood by way of self employment. Moreover, they have not placed on record any document of  M/s.Bhullar Steel Chughats House, on the file in order  to conceal this fact from this Commission. Further, the above said complainant No.1 namely Gurmeet Singh has filed one more complaint in this Commission bearing Consumer Complaint No. 84 of 2020 titled as Gurmeet Singh Vs. Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd, wherein he has stated that he has obtained the loan from  the Opposite Parties for the purchase of JCB Machine 3DX bearing RC No.PB-35-Q-6870, Model JCB India Limited, in the year 2014 by obtaining the loan from the Opposite Parties i.e. Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited amounting to Rs.18.5 lacs and said vehicle was hypothecated with the Opposite Parties, said machine was purchased by the complainant for earning his livelihood by means of self employment. So, from the record of both the complaints i.e. Consumer Complaint No. 83 of 2020 and Consumer Complaint No.84 of 2020, it is ample clear that the complainant namely Gurmeet Singh is carrying out at least two commercial activities at a time. Therefore, the complainants  do not fall within the definition of ‘consumer as defined under section ­­­­2(7) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Further the complainant No.2 also failed to prove that he is consumer of Opposite Parties in any way, it can safely be concluded that the complainants are not consumer of Opposite Parties as they are carrying on commercial activities and resultantly the complaint is liable to be dismissed as the complainants do not fall with the definition of Consumer under section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The complainants knowingly and intentionally did not produce documents  of Prop. Of M/s.Bhullar Steel Chughats House, on file in order to conceal the facts from this Commission. It is settled principle of legal jurisprudence that whosoever comes to the court to seek justice should come with clean hands and clear intention by mentioning and producing all relevant documents on record. Hence, the complaint is outrightly dismissed with costs of Rs.5000/- without going into the merits of the complaint. This costs is to be  deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission. Superintendent of this office is directed to club both the files i.e. CC No.83 of 2020 and CC No.84 of 2020 and place certified copies of both the Orders in both the complaints for the purpose of clarity of the issue in hand.  Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

9.       Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.

          This complaint could not be decided within the prescribed period because the State Government has not appointed any of the Whole Time Members in this Commission for about 3 years i.e. w.e.f. 15.09.2018 till 27.08.2021 as well as due to pandemic of COVID-19.

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:09.05.2022