Complainant Tarsem Singh through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to return him the excess amount of Rs.16,449/- and issue No Objection Certificate of loan. They be also directed to pay Rs.30,000/- as mental pain, agony and harassment and litigation expenses to him, in the interest of justice.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he has purchased a vehicle Tata LPT 2515 Turbo FBT bearing no.PB-06-G-2458 from Tata Company for his own livelihood and financed the same for Rs.3,34,000/- vide a loan no.PTNKT0309160004 and Folio No.T0021091WS on 16.9.2013 from the opposite parties. He had made the payment in installments till 20.6.2015 and has been making the payments to the opposite parties regularly and as per statement of loan issued by the opposite parties the balance amount of loan on 27.6.2015 was Rs.52,501.87 Ps but they received Rs.69,000/- on 27.6.2015 from him. Thus the opposite parties received Rs.16,499/- excess fraudulently from him and also refused to issue the NOC. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.
- Notice of the complaint was served upon the opposite parties who appeared through their counsel and filed their joint written reply by taking the preliminary objections that complaint was not maintainable against the opposite parties; that jurisdiction of this Ld. Forum was barred as complainant was using the said vehicle for commercial purpose and earning profits only and there was an arbitration agreement between the complainant and the opposite parties to raise all the disputes, issues, rights and liabilities before the Arbitrator only; that complainant had not come to the Ld. Forum with clean hands and had filed this false and frivolous complaint against the opposite parties with an ulterior motive to delay the payment of the due loan installments and as such complainant is liable to pay the exemplary costs for this illegal act. On merits, it was submitted that an amount of Rs.70,344/- was due against the complainant and a statement of loan account of the complainant was issued to him on 27.06.2015. It was incorrect that an amount of Rs.16,499/- in excess or fraudulently was received from the complainant by the opposite parties. It was also incorrect that the opposite parties had refused to issue the NOC to the complainant. Actually, the complainant had never approached for issuing any NOC to the opposite parties. A short loan amount is still due against the complainant and he is not ready to pay the same to the opposite parties. All other averments made in complaint have been denied and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs.
4. Counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C1 along with other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C4 and closed the evidence.
5. Sh.Satish Kumar Retainer Advocate has tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP1 along with other documents Ex.OP-2 & Ex.OP-3 and closed the evidence.
6. We have thoroughly examined the available documentary evidence as produced on records so as to interpret the meaning and purpose of each document and also the scope of adverse inference for of some documents ignored to be produced by the contesting litigants in the back-drop of arguments duly put forth by the respective learned counsels of the present contestants. We find that the present dispute had arisen on account of the alleged demand and acceptance by the OP financers of the final amount of Rs.69,000/- on 27.06.2015 instead of the actual outstanding of Rs.52,501.87 p in the complainant’s Loan A/c with them & subsequent ‘refusal’ to issue ‘NOC’ (No Objection Certificate) to vacate the financer’s Lien.
7. We however find that the OP financers have in turn alleged the outstanding balance to be at: Rs.70,344/- and not Rs.52,501.87 p as appearing in the Loan A/c statement (Ex.C2/ Ex.OP2) that somehow also exhibit: Rs.17,843/- as Working Capital –GURDS0412300006-Future Principal; but the same has not been even attempted to be explained during the entire complaint proceedings and as such the ‘amount’ shall not be payable by the complainant who on the other hand somehow has claimed ‘refund’ of Rs. 16,499/- as amount ‘excess’ paid along with cost and appropriate compensation etc.
8. However, it be reduced to writing for the statutory purposes that the OP financers have failed to produce some cogent evidence to prove its ‘bald’ claim of outstanding balance in the complainant’s loan a/c and also its ‘bald’ defense of ‘commercial purpose’. Further, the present remedy as availed under the CP Act, 1986 being an alternative/additional remedy by virtue of its section ‘3’ shall be duly available even at the face of an otherwise accepted ‘arbitration’ agreement.
9. Lastly, in the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and thus ORDER the OP financers to write-off/set-aside the arbitrary and the unexplained outstanding balance in the complainant’s Truck Loan A/c and also to refund the excess paid amount of Rs.16,499/- along with issuance of ‘No Dues Certificate’ to the complainant besides to pay him Rs.5,000/- as compensation and cost of litigation within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the present orders otherwise the complainant shall also be entitled to receive an additional compensation by way of interest @ 9 % PA w e f date of orders till actual payment.
10. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.
(Naveen Puri)
President.
ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)
September, 08, 2016 Member.
*MK*
