Order by:

Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President

1.       The complainants have filed the instant complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019  on the allegations that in the year 2014 the representative of the Opposite Parties contacted the Complainant and asked to take vehicle loan from the Opposite Parties and also told that the Opposite Parties is a very good finance company and under the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India, they provides the loan to the customers on reasonable rates  as prescribed by Reserve Bank of India. The representative of the opposite Parties approached the complainant and allured to obtain the vehicle loan against the hypothecation of the vehicle at a very nominal rate of interest and without any hidden or incidental charges and on the allurement and believing the agents of the Opposite Parties, the complainant agreed and Opposite Parties obtained the loan from the Opposite Parties for the purchase of JCB Machine 3DX. Accordingly, the Complainant purchased JCB Machine, bearing RC No. PB35Q-6870, Model JCB India Limited, in the year 2014 by obtaining the loan from the Opposite Parties amounting to Rs. 18.50 lakhs and said vehicle was hypothecated with the Opposite Parties. Said machine was purchased by the Complainant for earning his livelihood by means of self employment. At the time of  availing the loan by the Complainant from the Opposite Parties, the representative of the Opposite Parties took the signatures of the Complainant on so many blank papers and also took the blank signed cheques for security purposes of the loan amount advanced by them to the Complainant and told the Complainant that at the time of clearing the liability, said documents and cheques will be returned to the Complainant and the interest as prevailing as per the nationalized bank will be charged, but no copy of terms and conditions or agreement was ever served  to the Complainant. As per the RBI guidelines and regulations, the Opposite Parties are bound to provide the fair services to the complainant. Not only this,  after watching the good behaviour and return of the Complainant  and regular  payment of installments of the previous loan, the Opposite Parties again opened a new account on 30.06.2017 and paid further amount of Rs.10.50 lakhs to the Complainant in continuation of the previous loan against the hypothecation of the vehicle JCB machine.  The complainant has been regularly paying the installments of the loan to Opposite Parties worth Rs.33,000/- per month without any default through its bank account and in this way, the Complainant has paid the  loan amount and only Rs.2,42,471/- is due against the Complainant as on 23^rd of September, 2019. After the repayment of the loan amount, the complainant raised the demand from the Opposite Parties for issuing the No Due Certificate after receiving the balance amount and also to get cleared the hypothecation from the  concerned transport department  and also to return the documents/ security cheques  for which the Opposite Parties are legally bound to issue the said documents. The  complainant has made so many requests to the Opposite Parties to issue the requisite documents after receiving the balance amount, but initially, the Opposite Parties lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other and at last, the complainant is surprised to  note that the Opposite Parties raised a demand of Rs.7,67,131.59 paisa as on 24.09.2019 from the complainant against the loan account mentioning the alleged hidden charges of Rs.7,41,525.73 on account of arrears,   Rs.7,274/- on account of pre closure charges, Rs.1,309/- on account of tax on pre-closure charges, Rs.17,022.86 paisa on account of unbilled transaction balance totaling amounting Rs.7,67,131.59 paisa for which the Opposite Parties have no right to demand such illegal amount. Now to charge the aforementioned hidden charges which are in lakhs, the Opposite Parties are bent upon and threatening to repossess the hypothecated vehicle forcibly with the muscle powers for which they have no right or title to do so.  The complainant approached the Opposite Parties time and again  to issue the ‘No Due Certificate’ and to return the blank documents and cheques which were obtained by them at the time of sanctioning the loan to the Complainant after obtaining the balance genuine amount and get  clear the hypothecation of the vehicle in the  office of transport department and not threat to repossess the vehicle forcibly and illegally with the help of muscle powers,  and not to charge any hidden charges, but  the Opposite Parties  flatly refused to admit the rightful claim of the complainant, as such, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

1. To direct the Opposite Parties to issue the ‘No Due Certificate’ and to get clear the hypothecation of the vehicle from the transport department after receiving the genuine legal amount of Rs.2,42,471/- and not forcible took the repossession of the vehicle without due course of law and for issuance of directions to Opposite Parties not to demand the illegal/ hidden charges forcibly, arbitrarily and without due course of law  and to return the blank signed documents/ security cheques which were taken at the time of granting the loan.

 b)     The amount of Rs.5,00,000/- be allowed to be paid by the opposite parties on account of compensation due to mental tension and harassment caused by the complainant.

c)       The cost of complaint amounting to Rs.20,000/- may please be allowed.

d)      And any other relief to which this Hon’ble Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Moga deem fit may please be granted to the Complainant,  in the interest of justice and equity.       

2.       Opposite Parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing  the written version  on the ground inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.  The true facts are that the complainant took loan of Rs.18.50 lakhs in the year 2014 and the said amount was to be paid by the complainant alongwith interest, but the complainant committed default in repayment and as such, the complainant requested the Opposite Parties to renew the loan and after considering the request of complainant, the Opposite Parties renew the loan  of complainant and refinance the amount of Rs.10.50 lakhs which was to be repaid alongwith 48 monthly instalments commencing from 30.06.2017 to 30.05.2021 with interest i.e. Rs.14,94,451/- as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. Not only this, the complainant also took Rs.25,762/- for insurance purpose with was also to be repaid in 12 instalments alongwith interest i.e. Rs.29,327/-. But the complainant committed default in repayment of loan and as such, an amount of Rs.15,52,988.73 paisa is due against the complainant till 23.08.2021. Further it is submitted that as per the request of the complainant, the Opposite Parties provided the loan of Rs.18.50 lakhs for purchasing the JCB which is hypothecated with the Opposite Parties. The complainant himself admitted that Rs.2,42,471/- is due against him, so the question of issuing ‘No Due Certificate’ does not arise. Further as per the agreement, the said loan amount was to be paid as per the terms and conditions of the agreement and hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.  On merits also, Opposite Parties took up the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections. Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.

3.       In order to  prove  his case, the complainants have tendered into evidence  affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith copies of documents i.e. copy of aadhar card Ex.C2, copy of statement Ex.C3 and closed his evidence.

4.       On the other hand,  to rebut the evidence of the complainant,  Opposite Parties tendered into evidence the copy of agreement Ex.Ops1, affidavit of Sh.Ankit Gupta, copy of statement of account Ex.Ops3, copy of power of attorney Ex.Ops4  and closed the evidence on behalf of Opposite Parties.

5.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties, and  gone through the documents placed  on record.

6.       During the course of arguments, both the ld.counsel for the Complainant as well as Opposite Parties  have mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint as well as in written reply respectively.   

7.       The first and foremost issue before this Commission is whether the complainant is consumer of the Opposite Parties or not ?

8.       In order to find out answer to this issue, reference is made to Paragraph No.4 of the present complaint wherein the complainant namely Gurmeet Singh stated that he obtained the loan from the Opposite Parties for the purchase of  JCB Machine 3DX. Accordingly, the complainant purchased JCB Machine bearing RC No.PB35Q-6870, Model JCB India Limited, in the year 2014 by obtaining the loan from the Opposite Parties amounting to Rs.18.5 lacs and said vehicle was hypothecated with the Opposite Parties. Said machine was purchased by the complainant for earning his livelihood by means of self employment. Hence, the complainant is the consumer of the Opposite Parties, but the above mentioned Gurmeet Singh has filed one more complaint bearing No.CC 83 of 2020 titled as Gurmeet Singh and Another Vs. Shriram City Union Finance Limited and another wherein it is  proved by Ex.C4 of CC No.83 of 2020 that he has availed loan from Opposite Parties in the capacity of Prop. Of M/s.Bhullar Steel Chughat House. Hence, it is proved in CC No.83 of 2020 and CC No.84 of 2020 that the complainant namely Gurmeet Singh carrying on two different commercial activities at a time.  Hence, he failed to prove that he is using JCB  exclusively for earning his livelihood rather it can safely be concluded that the complainants are not consumer of Opposite Parties as they are carrying on commercial activities and resultantly the complaint is liable to be dismissed as the complainants do not fall with the definition of Consumer under section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and  it is proved beyond any doubt that he is carrying on two commercial activities at a time i.e.  running business under the name and style of Prop. M/s.Bhullar Steel Chughat House on the one hand and using JCB Machine for commercial purpose on the other hand. Moreover, the complainant concealed the facts of one complaint from the another complaint with a motive to take benefit of the same from this Commission.  It is settled principle of legal jurisprudence that whosoever comes to the court to seek justice should come with clean hands and clear intention by mentioning and producing all relevant documents on record. Hence, the complaint is outrightly dismissed with costs of Rs.5000/- without going into the merits of the complaint. This cost is to be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission. Superintendent of this office is directed to club both the files i.e. CC No.83 of 2020 and CC No.84 of 2020 and place certified copies of both the Orders in both the complaints for the purpose of clarity of the issue in hand.  Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

9.       Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.

          This complaint could not be decided within the prescribed period because the State Government has not appointed any of the Whole Time Members in this Commission for about 3 years i.e. w.e.f. 15.09.2018 till 27.08.2021 as well as due to pandemic of COVID-19.

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:09.05.2022