Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/1156/2011

Shabnam W/o Salim - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Amit Saini

09 Feb 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                         Complaint No.1156 of 2011   

                                                                                         Date of institution: 14.11.2011

                                                                                         Date of decision: 09.02.2017

 

Shabnam aged about 35 years, wife of Sh. Salim resident of Village and Post office Miserwala, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmor (HP)

 

                                        …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited, OPP. Raghunath Mandir, Jagadhri Road, Yamuna Nagar, through its Manager.
2. Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited, 1213, Angappa Naickan Street, Chennai-600001, through its manager.

 

                                                                                                                                               …Respondents.

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT

                         SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER

 

Present:           Shri Amit Saini, Advocate for complainant.

                        Shri Ajay Shakti Goel, Advocate for OPs.

 

ORDER( ASHOK KUMAR GARG PRESIDENT)

 

1.                       The present complaint filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2.                     Brief facts as alleged in the complaint are that complainant got financed a truck bearing Registration No.HR38-D-7455  vide loan account No.SLYMN02389 for an amount of Rs.2,25,000/- on 20.06.2007 from the respondents (hereinafter respondent will be referred as OP Finance Company). The complainant has availed this facilities to earn her livelihood. At the time of granting the loan, the official of the OPs told to the complainant that the rate of interest will be 11.5% and the loan will be repayable in 30 monthly installments. After that, the complainant regularly and diligently paid the loan installments as per the terms and conditions of the said loan agreement. In the month of January, 2009, the official of the OPs visited the house of the complainant and got her signatures on some papers on the pretext that these paper were got signed just as token that she is satisfied with their services. After paying all the loan installments, the complainant requested the officials of the OPs to issue “No Due Certificate”, so that the hypothecation from the Registration Certificate of the vehicle could be cancelled. However, complainant was astonished to hear from the officials of the OPs that her loan was further renewed for Rs.2,25,000/-  in the month of January, 2009 and now she has to pay installments till July, 2011 and the amount already paid by her was adjusted towards the interest in the previous loan. The complainant objected to this mal practice of the OPs as she has never consented or apply for the second loan. But the officials of the OPs threatened that if she did not pay the further installments her vehicle  in question will be taken into possession by them. Finding no other alternative, the complainant started to pay installment and she  had paid almost all the loan amount as stated by the official of the OPs. After that, complainant visited so many times  in the month of October, 2011 and claimed “ No Objection Certificate”  but the official of the OPs  told to the complainant that she has to pay Rs.2,13,000/- then only they will release the “No Dues Certificate” to her. As the OPs  has not issued the No Objection Certificate  in respect of the vehicle in question despite so many requests, hence, this complaint with a request to issue necessary directions to the OPs to issue NOC and also not to claim any loan amount and further also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.  

3.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed their written statement taking some preliminary objection such as complaint is not maintainable; complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint by her own act and conduct; forum has no jurisdiction; parties are governed by Arbitration Agreement and any disputes or differences arise between them shall be settled through arbitration and on merit it has been submitted that complainant has got financed a vehicle Registration No.HR38-D-7455 for an amount of Rs.2,25,000/- on dated 01.06.2007. The said amount was to be repaid in 29 monthly installments of Rs.10,310/- each. From the very beginning, the complainant used to avoid the said installments on one pretext or the other and in the said loan account, an amount of Rs.8005/- (excluding other charges) was outstanding against the complainant. As such, she has got renewed the said loan and again an amount of Rs.2,25,000/- was refinanced on the aforesaid vehicle on dated 29.01.2009 and accordingly it was agreed that the said amount will be repaid in 31 installments i.e. first installment of Rs.10,305/-  and rest of the installment was of Rs.10,284/-  each and as such an amount of Rs.2,04,543.18/- (excluding other charges) is still outstanding in the loan amount of the complainant. It has been further mentioned that the complainant was using the said vehicle in question exclusively for commercial purpose. It is denied that complainant has paid loan installments as stated and in this way complainant has no right to get the NOC in respect of vehicle in question. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of the complaint as there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.  

4.                     Complainant failed to adduce any evidence despite so many opportunities ultimately the evidence of the complainant was closed by Court order dated 11.05.2016. However at the time of filing of the complaint, complainant has placed on file some documents i.e. photocopy of cheque amounting Rs.2,25,000/- dated 20.06.2007 as Annexure C-1, registration certificate of vehicle as Annexure C-2, photocopy of single paper of register showing entries of installments as Annexure C-3 and photocopy of receipt  as own depositing amount Annexure C-4 to C47.

5.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence, affidavit of Shri Rajesh Kumar, Authorized representative of OPs as Annexure RW/A, photocopy of statement of account in respect of agreement No.TSLYMN0002389 as Annexure R-1 and photocopy of YMNGR0901280004 as Annexure R-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

6.                     We have heard the counsels of both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file very carefully and minutely.

7.                     It is not disputed that complainant got financed her truck bearing registration No. HR-38D-7455 from the OPs Finance Company vide loan account No. SLYMN02389 to the tune of Rs. 2,25,000/- on 20.06.2007 which was repayable in 30 monthly installments. The only grievances of the complainant is that after paying all the loan installments, the complainant visited the office of the OPs and demanded No Dues Certificate so that the hypothecation from the registration certificate of the vehicle could be cancelled. However, complainant was astonished to hear that Ops Finance company further renewed the loan amount of Rs. 2,25,000/- in the month of January, 2009 and now the complainant has to pay installments till July, 2011. Accordingly, under the threat the complainant started paying installments and she had paid almost loan amount as stated by the official of the OPs. After that complainant visited the office of the OPs in the month of October 2011 and claimed NOC but again the official of the OPs asked to pay Rs. 2,13,000/- to the complainant, then only they will release the NOC to her. Hence, the act of the Ops Company constitute the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Learned counsel for the complainant draw our attention towards the receipts of installments paid to the OPs Company Annexure C-4 to C-47 and complainant is entitled to get the NOC in respect of vehicle in question.

8.                     Whereas on the other hand, it is the case of the OPs Company that complainant has got financed her truck for amounting to Rs. 2,25,000/- on 01.06.2007 which was repayable in 29 monthly installments of Rs. 10,310/- each. When an amount of Rs. 8005/- was outstanding against the complainant then complainant got renewed the said loan and again an amount of Rs. 2,25,000/- was refinanced on the aforesaid vehicle on dated 29.01.2009 and accordingly it was agreed that the said amount will be repaid in 31 installments i.e. first installment of Rs. 10,305/- and rest of Rs. 10,284/- each and in this account an amount of Rs. 2,04,543.18 including other charges is still outstanding against the complainant. Learned counsel for the OPs draw our attentions towards the account statement of loan vide loan agreement No. TLSYMN-0002389 Annexure R-1 and second loan account statement bearing account No. YMNGR-0901280004 Annexure R-2. Hence, the complainant is not entitled to get NOC from the OPs and there was no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs Company.

9.                     After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that matter involved in the present complaint requires elaborate evidence because as per the version of the complainant she never obtained the second loan amounting to Rs. 2,25,000/- in the month of January, 2009 and further shehad already cleared the entire loan amount against the first loan agreement bearing No. TSLYMN-0002389 whereas on the other hand, as per version of the OPs, the complainant got renewed her loan again in the month of January, 2009 vide loan agreement bearing No. YMNGR-0901280004 and as per account statement of second loan, an amount of Rs. 2,04,543.18 is still due against the complainant. Meaning thereby that dispute between the parties is related to the account and execution of loan agreements/ documents which cannot be scrutinize in a summary way before the Consumer Forum. Further, there is also dispute between the repayments of installments as well as interest and other charges which also cannot be decided in a summary manner in the Consumer Forum. Hence without commenting on the merit of the case, we are of the considered view that the Civil Court is the best platform to decide such type of cases and the complainant is not entitled to get any relief from this Forum. On the other angle, also, as per account statement of the Ops Annexure R-2 there was balance of Rs. 2,04,543.18 as on 18.11.2011, on this account also this Forum is unable to issue any direction to the OPs to issue the NOC to the complainant.

10.                   Resultantly, in the circumstances noted above, the present complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed with liberty to approach the Civil Court as per law, if so advised. Exemption of time spent before this Forum is granted in terms of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Luxmi Engineering Works vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute (1995)III SCC page 583.The Assistant is directed to return the original documents, if any, to the complainant after retaining the photo copies of the same on the file. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.   

Announced:  09.02.2017.           

                                               

                                    (S.C.SHARMA)                         (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                     MEMBER                                 PRESIDENT

                                                                                        DCDRF, YAMUNANAGAR