DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.
Complaint No. 615
Instituted on: 22.11.2017
Decided on: 12.06.2018
Gurmeet Kaur W/O Gobind Singh, resident of Village Mangwal, Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur.
..Complainant
Versus
1. Shriram Finance Ltd. Registered Office: 2nd Floor, SCO 16-17, Piccadily Road, Sector 34-A, Sector 34, Chandigarh.
2. Shriram Finance Ltd. Near Canara Bank, Patiala Gate, Sangrur.
3. Honda Agency through its MD, C-107, Industrial Area, Phase 7, Industrial Area, Sector 73, Sahibzada Ajit Singh, Punjab.
4. Krishna Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. Jind Road, Sangrur.
5. Allahabad Bank, Sangrur Branch (2218) Housing Board Chowk, Sangrur, District Sangrur.
..Opposite parties
For the complainant : Ms. Anjana Jindal, Adv.
For OP No.1&2 : Shri R.S.Toor, Advocate.
For OP No. 4 : Shri Rajender Sharma, Advocate.
For OP NO.3&5 : Exparte.
Quorum: Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
Sarita Garg, Member
Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.
1. Smt. Gurmeet Kaur, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased an Active Honda bearing registration number PB-13-AQ-5745 on 16.10.2015 and the same was got financed from OP number 2 to the tune of Rs.43,500/- which was repayable in 24 equated monthly instalments to the tune of Rs.2440/- each. The grievance of the complainant is that though she has paid all the instalments to the OPs in time, but still the OPs are insisting upon the complainant to pay Rs.7883/- to get no due certificate. Further case of the complainant is that OP number 2 has also charged an amount of Rs.2000/- in excess than the loan amount, which is quite illegal and without any basis. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to settle the account of the complainant and to pay compensation and litigation expenses.
2. In reply filed by OPs number 1 and 2, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form and that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands. On merits, it is stated that the complainant got a finance of Rs.45,500/- and the same was payable in 24 monthly instalments of Rs.2440/- each. It is stated in the reply that they are ready to issue no due certificate, if the complainant pays the amount of Rs.8050/- which is due against the complainant and it is further averred that an amount of Rs.5000/- is due on account of cheque bouncing charges and Rs.2440/- is outstanding against the complainant. The other allegation levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.
3. In reply filed by OP number 4, it is admitted that the complainant had purchased the Honda Activa in question and it is further admitted that OP number 2 had paid an amount of Rs.43,500/- to the OP number 2. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.
4. The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs number 1 and 2 has produced Ex.OP-1&2/1 to Ex.OP1&2/4 affidavit and copies of documents and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 4 has produced Ex.Op4/1 copy of statement and closed evidence.
5. Record shows that the OPs number 3 and 5 did not appear despite service, as such they were proceeded against exparte.
6. We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.
7. It is admitted case of the complainant as well as the contesting opposite parties that the complainant had purchased the Honda Activa in question and an amount of Rs.43,500/- was raised as finance from OP number 2 which was repayable in 24 equal monthly instalments. In the present case, the case of the complainant is that though she has paid all the instalments in time and nothing is due towards her, but despite that OPs number 1 and 2 are not issuing no due certificate, which is very necessary for her as she has already cleared the whole of the loan amount. On the other hand, the case of the OPs number 1 and 2 is that an amount of Rs.8050/- is still outstanding against the complainant which are on account of overdue charges to the tune of Rs.670/-, as well as Rs.2440/- being outstanding amount and Rs.5000/- being cheque bouncing charges. A bare perusal of the case file reveals that the complainant has not denied this fact by filing rejoinder and producing cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence to rebut the contention of the Ops number 1 and 2 that there is no such outstanding amount against the complainant. In the circumstances, we feel that the complainant has failed to establish his case of any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
8. In view of our above discussions and circumstances of the case, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.
Pronounced.
June 12, 2018.
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President
(Sarita Garg)
Member
