Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Room No. 208 2^nd Floor, District Administrative Complex, Tarn Taran

                                                                                           Consumer Complaint No   :          10 of  2019

                                                                                                       Date of Institution              :         22.01.2019

                                                                                                        Date of Decision               :         29.04.2022

Dalbir Singh aged 50 years son of Gajjan Singh resident of Padhari Khurd, Tehsil and District Tarn Taran.

                                                                                                                                                                                 …..Complainant

Versus

1. Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. having its registered office at Mookambika Complex 3^rd Floor No. 4, Lady Desika Road, Mylapore Chennai- 600 004 through its Branch Heard.
2. Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. having its Branch Manager, District Amritsar.
3. Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. having its Branch Manager, District Tarn Taran.

                                                                                                                                                                                …Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Section  12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act

Quorum:               Sh. Charanjit Singh, President

Ms. Nidhi Verma Member

For Complainant                     Sh. Vikram Kaushal Advocate

For Opposite Parties               Sh. M.P. Arora advoate

PER:

Charanjit Singh, President

1        The complainant has filed the present complaint by invoking the provisions of Consumer Protection Act under Section 12 and 13 against the opposite parties on the allegations that the complainant is owner of a small goods vehicle having registration No. PB46-K-0689, Model 2011, Engine No. D6CYYS56918, Chassis No. MAT445222BZC27055 which was hypothecated by Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. Branch Amritsar. The complainant is using the above said vehicle for loading purposes and from this small business complainant is earning his livelihood to maintain himself and his family. The total value of the vehicle was Rs. 3,20,000/- and the said vehicle was purchased by the complainant in April 2011. The said vehicle was financed by opposite party and Rs. 1,00,000/- was paid as down payment by the complainant and remaining sum of Rs. 2,20,000/- was financed amount which was paid by the opposite party i.e. finance company. The opposite party also issued a payment schedule to the complainant whereby which his customer I.D was D0083944 and first due date for installment was 6.5.2011 and last due date for the installment was 20.3.2015. The complainant is very poor labourer having no knowledge regarding the English and he cannot even read and understand any documents in English language. The complainant was regularly paying installments of above said vehicle as per the payment schedule. The complainant used to pay the monthly installments of Rs. 7,200/- PM each at branch office Amritsar till 2016 and then as the new branch office was constructed at Tarn Taran, therefore, since 2016 the complainant is paying the installments regularly at Branch Office Tarn Taran till now. When the nephew of complainant-Dalbir Singh asked regarding his above said loan, he was surprised to see that till now the complainant has paid about Rs. 11 Lacs in regular installments to the opposite party since 2011 for the loan of Rs. 2,20,000/-. Thereafter Dalbir Singh complainant inquired the matter from the opposite parties, he came to know that still an amount of Rs. 2,17,000/- is outstanding against the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant took his nephew alongwith him and they inquired the matter from Amritsar Branch  and they came to know that his above said loan case has been completed and even the loan has been issued twice on the same vehicle without giving a single penny to the complainant and without his knowledge and signatures. The Branch Manager Rakesh Kumar alongwith the employees of the opposite party namely Dinesh Kumar and Sandeep Singh committed fraud with the complainant with malafide intention and with intention to grab the money illegally. A separate application to SSP Tarn Taran has also been given by the complainant. The complainant has also deposited money at Branch Office Tarn Taran at the instance of the branch Manager, receipt of same were not even issued to the complainant.  Ten Blank cheques starting from No. 203001 to 203010 duly signed by the complainant was also deposited with the opposite party finance company as security cheques at the time of issuance of the first loan in the month of April 2011 which are still lying with the opposite party and the branch Manager of the opposite party No. 3 is threatening the complainant that they will misuse those security cheques against the complainant by filling the same themselves for the remaining amount of Rs. 2,17,000/-.The complainant has prayed that the opposite parties may be directed to settle the loan account of the complainant as well as be directed to return the excessive amount paid by the complainant to the opposite parties  and also to return the eleven security cheques to the complainant and prayed Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs. 30,000/- as litigation charges. Alongwith the complaint, the complainant has placed on record his affidavit Ex. C-1, payment schedule Ex. C-2, Data sheet dated 12.12.2018 of the loan account of the complainant Ex. C-3, Account statements Ex. C-4 to Ex. C-8, Copy of receipts Ex. C-9 to Ex. C-58, Copy of R.C. of vehicle Ex. C-59, Copy of last page of cheque book where date of issue of cheque book is mentioned Ex. C-60, Copies of applications sent to DIG Police and S.S.P. Tarn Taran Ex. C-61, C-62, Copy of receipt of mail Ex. C-63.   

2        After formal admission of the complaint, notice was issued to Opposite Parties. Opposite Parties appeared through counsel and filed written version contesting the complaint on the preliminary objections that the present complaint under section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is not maintainable in the eyes of law. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with malafide intention and with ulterior motive to harass the opposite parties as the complainant has dragged the opposite parties in unwarranted and unnecessary litigation by filing the present complaint. The complaint is not maintainable as per Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and this Commission has got no jurisdiction to try the present complaint in the present form. The complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint.  The present complaint is bad for mis joinder and non joinder of necessary and proper parties. The complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands and suppressed the material facts. The complainant has furnished wrong facts in order to mislead the Commission. The complainant has intentionally did not plead the true facts due in order to take undue benefits.  Dalbir Singh has entered in to various loan agreements with the company. Lastly, the complainant Dalbir Singh has taken Rs. 1,60,000/- amount of loan and entered in to loan agreement dated 17^th March 2017 and the schedule of payment as fixed monthly i.e. Rs. 5,500/- for the first month and later on Rs. 5,220/- for remaining each month and due dates were fixed from 20.4.2017 to 20.2.2021 in total 47 installments. Now the complainant has annexed all the receipts of the various loan agreements and had suppressed the material facts with regard to other loan agreements in order to misguide this Commission for taking undue benefits. The complainant as attached various receipts of different loan agreement by alleging that the receipts belong to the agreement of the year 2011 and the said submission of the complainant is gross case of suppression of material facts. The complainant is liable to pay the remaining installment as per the schedule settled down at the time of sanctioning of the loan and further when payments are delayed by the complainant then alongwith fine and interest upon the said amount. The complainant is still liable to pay Rs.2,73,044/- up to date 19.7.2019 to the opposite parties i.e. S.R.T.F. Company as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement dated 17.3.2017 which was duly signed and executed between the complainant and the opposite party. All the terms and conditions of the hypothecations cum loan agreement dated 17^th March, 2017 were explained to the complainant and the complainant Dalbir Singh has executed and entered in to the agreement with his free Will and consent. On merits, it was pleaded that the vehicle in question was firstly hypothecated to SRTF by the complainant in the year 2011 and lastly the complainant again hypothecated the above said vehicle to the company vide loan agreement dated 17.3.2017. In the year 2011, the company has got financed the amount of Rs. 3,20,000/-. Alongwith the written version, the opposite parties have placed on record affidavit of Rakesh Kumar Ex. OPs 1 to 3/1 Alongwith documents Ex. OPs 1 to 3/2 to Ex. OPs 1 to 3/5.  

3        We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record placed on the file.

4        Ld. counsel for the complainant contended that he is owner of a small goods vehicle having registration No. PB46-K-0689, Model 2011, Engine No. D6CYYS56918, Chassis No. MAT445222BZC27055 which was hypothecated by Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. Branch Amritsar. The complainant is using the above said vehicle for loading purposes and from this small business complainant is earning his livelihood to maintain himself and his family. He further contended that the total value of the vehicle was Rs. 3,20,000/- and the said vehicle was purchased by the complainant in April 2011. The said vehicle was financed by opposite party and Rs. 1,00,000/- was paid as down payment by the complainant and remaining sum of Rs. 2,20,000/- was financed amount which was paid by the opposite party i.e. finance company. The first due date for installment was 6.5.2011 and last due date for the installment was 20.3.2015. He further contended that the complainant is very poor labourer having no knowledge regarding the English and he cannot even read and understand any documents in English language. The complainant was regularly paying installments of above said vehicle as per the payment schedule. The complainant used to pay the monthly installments of Rs. 7,200/- PM each at branch office Amritsar till 2016 and then as the new branch office was constructed at Tarn Taran, therefore, since 2016 the complainant is paying the installments regularly at Branch Office Tarn Taran till now. He further contended that when the nephew of complainant-Dalbir Singh asked regarding his above said loan, he was surprised to see that till now the complainant has paid about Rs. 11 Lacs in regular installments to the opposite party since 2011 for the loan of Rs. 2,20,000/-. Thereafter, Dalbir Singh complainant inquired the matter from the opposite parties, he came to know that still an amount of Rs. 2,17,000/- is outstanding against the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant took his nephew alongwith him and they inquired the matter from Amritsar Branch and they came to know that his above said loan case has been completed and even the loan has been issued twice on the same vehicle without giving a single penny to the complainant and without his knowledge and signatures. He further contended that the Branch Manager Rakesh Kumar alongwith the employees of the opposite party namely Dinesh Kumar and Sandeep Singh committed fraud with the complainant with malafide intention and with intention to grab the money illegally. A separate application to SSP Tarn Taran has also been given by the complainant. The complainant has also deposited money at Branch Office Tarn Taran at the instance of the branch Manager, receipt of same were not even issued to the complainant.  He further contended that Ten Blank cheques starting from No. 203001 to 203010 duly signed by the complainant was also deposited with the opposite party finance company as security cheques at the time of issuance of the first loan in the month of April 2011 which are still lying with the opposite party. He further contended that the branch Manager of the opposite party No. 3 is threatening the complainant that they will misuse those security cheques against the complainant by filling the same themselves for the remaining amount of Rs. 2,17,000/- and prayed that the present complaint may be allowed.

5        On the other hands, Ld. counsel for the opposite party contended that the complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands and suppressed the material facts. The complainant has furnished wrong facts in order to mislead the Commission. The complainant has intentionally did not plead the true facts due in order to take undue benefits.  He further contended that Dalbir Singh has entered in to various loan agreements with the company. Lastly, the complainant Dalbir Singh has taken Rs. 1,60,000/- amount of loan and entered in to loan agreement dated 17^th March 2017 and the schedule of payment as fixed monthly i.e. Rs. 5,500/- for the first month and later on Rs. 5,220/- for remaining each month and due dates were fixed from 20.4.2017 to 20.2.2021 in total 47 installments. Now the complainant has annexed all the receipts of the various loan agreements and had suppressed the material facts with regard to other loan agreements in order to misguide this Commission for taking undue benefits. The complainant as attached various receipts of different loan agreement by alleging that the receipts belong to the agreement of the year 2011 and the said submission of the complainant is gross case of suppression of material facts. The complainant is liable to pay the remaining installment as per the schedule settled down at the time of sanctioning of the loan and further when payments are delayed by the complainant then alongwith fine and interest upon the said amount. The complainant is still liable to pay Rs.2,73,044/- up to date 19.7.2019 to the opposite parties i.e. S.R.T.F. Company as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement dated 17.3.2017 which was duly signed and executed between the complainant and the opposite party. All the terms and conditions of the hypothecations cum loan agreement dated 17^th March, 2017 were explained to the complainant and the complainant Dalbir Singh has executed and entered in to the agreement with his free Will and consent and prayed that the present complaint may be dismissed. 

6        From the appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, the point involved in the present case is that the vehicle in question is financed with the opposite parties from whom the complainant has got sanctioned a loan and a hire purchase agreement was executed between complainant as such the complainant is not a consumer of the opposite party . Reliance in this connection has been placed upon Tata Motors Finance Ltd. And Anr. Vs. Vikas Nanda & Ors. 2011(2) CPC 217 of the Hon’ble Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission wherein it has been held that as vehicle was purchased under a hire purchase agreement, complainant was not a consumer . Further reliance has been placed upon Parmeswari W/o Ramakrishnana Vs. The General Manager, V.S.T. Service Station, The Branch Manager, Tata Finance Limited and the United India Insurance Company 2010(2) CPC 164 (NC) of the Hon’ble National Commission wherein it has been held that in the case of Hire purchase agreement, the complainant does not become a consumer and therefore, the complaint is not maintainable.

7        In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit and substance in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Commission and due to COVID-19. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties as per rules.. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Open Commission.

29.4.2022