ORDER

(Passed on  21/06/2021)

PER SHRI.ATUL D. ALSI , HON’BLE PRESIDENT.

             The complainant has filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 against OP for non-supply of requisite loan documents for repayment of loan and thereby claiming compensation for the negligence of service.

2.         The story in short is that the complainant purchased a Ten Wheel Truck bearing No.MH-34 M 8460 for earning his livelihood by obtaining finance of Rs.4,50,000/- from the OP Finance Company in June,2007. As per the loan agreement, the loan was to be repaid in equal monthly installments of Rs.15,778/- each during the period from 2012 to 2016. However, the OP did not return the original bills nor it handed over the copies of documents relating to loan transaction to the complainant. The OP, in spite of repeated demands, did not issue statement of accounts of his loan account for enabling him to repay the loan.   

3.         In the meantime, on 17/11/2016, the truck met with an accident and sustained damages. The complainant had to incur expenses of Rs.1,50,000/- however, after the compromise arrived at between the insurance company and the OP Financer, the claim was settled at Rs.60,000/- only and this amount too was credited in the loan account of the complainant. The complainant repeatedly, requested the OP to furnish statement of accounts and details about the outstanding dues as against him, however, the OP failed to supply the same. On the contrary, the OP wrongfully shown disbursement of additional loan amounts of Rs.30,000/- vide loan agreement No.0606270002 and further Rs.44,833/- vide loan agreement No.0703240001 respectively, though the complainant had never requested or applied for any such loans. The complainant had paid an amount of Rs.2,11,700/- towards repayment of loan till date, however, due to non-furnishing of accounts statement and outstanding dues by the OP finance company, the balance amount could not be repaid. The inaction on the part of OP amounts to deficiency in service and hence the complainant has filed instant complaint praying for furnishing of documents relating to loan transaction, along with grant of compensation for deficiency in service.

4.         The complaint is admitted and notice was served on the OP. The OP filed its reply and thereby denied allegations. It raised an objection that the complainant had purchased two trucks bearing Nos.MH-29 T 1216 and MH-34 M 8460 by obtaining loan. Therefore, the nature and purpose of the transaction was a commercial one and as such, the complainant is not a “Consumer” as envisaged in C.P.[amendment]Act,2019.

5.        The OP further contended that The OP had sanctioned a loan of Rs.5 lac on 20/2/2016, and further of  Rs.44,833/-  for obtaining insurance of the Truck bearing No.MH-34, M 8460 on 26/6/2016. A third loan of Rs.30,000/- was also disbursed on 24/3/2017 through his bank account bearing No.962810110008486. The complainant was not regular in payment of loan instalments and as such huge amounts are outstanding against him and just for avoiding consequences of non-payment of loan, the complainant has filed this false complaint which is liable to be dismissed.

6.                   The counsel for the complainant is absent since long and considering the long pendency of the matter, the case is posted for arguments of OP.

7.         Counsel for OP Finance company argued that the complainant has purchased two trucks by obtaining loan and hence the nature and purpose of the loan transaction is commercial in nature and hence the complainant can not be termed as a Consumer. He further argued that the OP had disbursed in all three loans and the OP has filed on record copies of all the three loan agreements. However, the complainant failed to pay the installments regularly and as such there are huge outstanding dues as against the complainant’s loan account. The OP provided all the documents and information as and when called for by the complainant and copies of the same are filed on record. Hence there is no merit in the complaint and it deserves to be dismissed with cost.

                                                                        REASONING

           From the perusal of documents it is clear that the OP had sanctioned a loan of Rs.5 lac on 20/2/2016 as per loan agreement document at Exh.8/1, and further of  Rs.44,833/-  for obtaining insurance of the Truck bearing No.MH-34, M 8460 on 26/6/2016 as per loan agreement document at Exh.8/4 and a loan of Rs.30,000/-on 24/3/2017 as per loan agreement filed at Exh.8/4A.  All the three loan agreements filed on record bears the signature of complainant as well as that of OP company. As per the statement of loan account of the complainant which is filed on record, there are outstanding dues against the complainant. When the dues are outstanding as against the loan account, the OP finance company has every right to recover the same as per the stipulations in the agreement so also as per the provisions of law. The complainant has alleged non furnishing of documents relating to loan transaction by the OP for enabling him to repay the loan. However, the complainant has not filed anything on record to show that he had applied for any such documents to the OP and the application was duly acknowledged by the OP. In view of this, we don’t find any merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. Hence the following order..

                                                            Final order

1.      The Complaint No.96/2017 is dismissed.

2.      Parties to bear their own costs.

3.      Copy of the order be furnished to both the parties free of cost.

(Smt.Kalpana Jangade (Kute) (Smt.Kirti Vaidya (Gadgil)  (Shri.Atul D.Alsi)

               Member                        Member                                   President