DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL, FORUM BATHINDA.

CC No.470 of 2014

Date of Institution: 01.08.2014.

Date of Decision: 06.05.2015.

Mahinder Singh aged about 56 years S/o Sh. Gajjan Singh resident of H. No. 171, Village Bhunderh, Tehsil Phul, District Bathinda.

......Complainant. Versus

1. Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited, 4th Floor, “A” Wing, Aggarwal Trade Centre, Sector 11, CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai- 400614 through its Managing Director.

2. Kansal Finance Co., (Shriram Transport Finance Co. Limited), Barnala Road, Rampura Phul, Tehsil Phul, Distt. Bathinda through its Branch Manager.

......Opposite Parties.

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Present:

For complainant : Sh. Bikramjit Singh Ahluwalia, Advocate.

For OP No.1&2 : Sh. J. S. Kohli, Advocate.

Quorum:

Sh. Surinder Mohan, President.

Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.

Sh. Jarnail Singh, Member.

ORDER

Surinder Mohan, President.

Brief facts are that in order to earn his livelihood, complainant purchased one second hand “Bolero Jeep” for plying the same as Taxi bearing registration No. PB03P-4109, after taking loan of Rs. 2 lacs from

Contd.....2.

: 2 :

OP vide agreement No. CHNFRO112120004 and as per terms of the loan agreement, the said amount was to be repaid in 23 monthly installments commencing w.e.f 20.1.2012 to 20.11.2013. Complainant started using the vehicle in question and also got the registration of the vehicle transferred in his name and it was duly hypothecated with OPs. Complainant has been regularly making payments of all the installments to OPs and he has already repaid the entire amount and nothing remains due or outstanding against complainant. The entire loan account has been settled in full and final but still OPs did not issue any “No Due Certificate” in favour of complainant regarding full and final settlement of loan account. Complainant has been repeatedly requesting OPs to issue the requisite NOC, so that the complainant may be able to get the hypothecation of OP No.2 cancelled from original RC of the vehicle in question but OPs did not issue any NOC till date. Rather they have been putting the matter off on one pretext or the other and ultimately OPs have flatly refused to accede to the requests of complainant. OPs have illegally and arbitrarily started demanding more amount from complainant for the issuance of NOC although nothing is due against complainant. That due to above-said act and conduct of OPs, complainant is suffering from great mental tension, agony, botheration, harassment and complainant is entitled to issuance of requisite “No Due Certificate” regarding the aforesaid loan account. The complainant is also entitled to the compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- from OPs on account of mental tension, agony, botheration besides Rs. 5500/- as costs of litigation.

2. In reply, it is pleaded that facts are matter of record. It is pleaded that it is also a matter of record regarding the repayment of loan

Contd.......3.

: 3 :

amount by complainant and settlement of the loan account in full and final settlement. OPs never refused to issue NOC in favour of complainant as alleged. Rather complainant is required to sign certain documents for the same and OPs are still ready and willing to issue NOC in favour of complainant after getting requisite documents signed from complainant. The complainant himself did not turn up to sign the requisite documents and to collect the NOC although OPs never refused to issue NOC in favour of complainant. There is no question of any mental tension, agony, botheration, harassment and humiliation as alleged. Complainant is also not entitled to any compensation from replying OPs. Other paras of the complaint have been denied and OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3. In order to prove his case complainant tendered into evidence Ex. C-1 to C-24 Copies of receipts issued by OP No.2; Ex. C-25 Copy of detail of EMI; Ex. C-26 Copy of letter; Ex. C-27 Short affidavit of Mahinder Singh; Ex. C-28 Affidavit of Mahinder Singh.

4. In order to rebut this evidence, OP No. 2&1 have placed on record Ex. OP-1/1 Affidavit of Sameer Kansal; Ex.OP-1/2 Copy of Panchayati Compromise dated 4.11.2014; Ex. OP-1/3 Copy of NOC; Ex. OP-1/4 Copy of Form No.35 dated 4.12.2014.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the file very carefully.

6. It is not disputed that complainant raised finance to the tune of Rs. 2 lac from OPs for purchasing “Bolero Jeep” bearing registration No. PB03P-4109. Exhibit C-25 is detail of EMI. The last installment was to be paid on 20.11.2013 but complainant has not paid the installment in time as the last installment was paid on 21.12.2013. Exhibit C-26 is a letter giving

Contd.......4.

: 4 :

particulars of agreement, vehicle, finance amount, tenure etc.

7. As per stand of OPs they never refused to issue NOC. This written version was filed on 17.10.2014. No stand has been taken that any amount is due against complainant. However, OPs have placed on the file a Panchayati compromise dated 4.11.2014 but it remains unexplained how this Panchayati compromise came into being especially when OPs have taken a stand that no amount is due against complainant and they have never refused to issue NOC. OPs have placed on the file NOC dated 4.12.2014, which is Exhibit OP-1/3 and Form No.35 dated 4.12.2014.

8. Learned counsel for complainant has stated at bar that these documents were not supplied to the complainant.

Learned counsel for OPs have raised a point that in fact it is not a consumer dispute. Hon'ble Haryana Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula in a case with the title “TATA Finance Limited Versus Bhim Sain, First Appeal No. 2620 of 2007 decided on 20.9.2010 was pleased to observe that;

“Undisputedly, the complainant had got financed his vehicle with the appellants-Opposite Parties as per Hire-Purchaser agreement and as such dispute between the parties can not be termed as a Consumer Dispute. The District Forum has not considered the factual position on record and as such the impugned order under challenge is not sustainable in the eyes of law.”

Hon'ble National Commission in a case with the title “Ram Deshlahara Versus Magma Leasing Ltd III(2006)CPJ247 (NC) has

Contd....5.

: 5 :

held that;

“Under a hire-purchase transaction the financier does not render any service within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act and the petitioner is, thus, not a consumer.”

9. In view of above discussion, the complainant is not a consumer and such complaint is not maintainable and the same stands dismissed.

10. Before parting with this order, we would like to observe that OPs have taken a definite stand that they never refused to issue NOC and they have already placed on the file a copy of NOC dated 4.12.2014 and copy of form No.35.

11. In such a situation complainant is advised to send a formal application to OPs, so that OPs may send original NOC and form No.35. Parties are left to bear their own costs.

12. Let certified copies of order be communicated to the parties free of cost by registered post and file be consigned to the record room.

Announced:

06.05.2015

Jarnail Singh, Sukhwinder Kaur, Surinder Mohan,

Member. Member President.