District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.

Consumer Complaint  No. 377/2021.

 Date of Institution:03.08.2021.

Date of Order:11.04.2023.

Krishan Kumar son of late Shri Karan Singh, Resident of House No.33, Friends Colony, Ballabgarh, Faridabad, Haryana, Prop. Of M.s. Kisan Hardware Store, Opp. Guest House, Near Panchayat Bhawan road, Ballabgarh, Faridabad – 121004.

                                                          …….Complainant……..

                                                Versus

1.                Small Business Fincredit India (SBFC Finance Private Limited) Unit No. 762, Building No.1, Solitare Corporate Park, Chakala, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 093.

Service also effected to be:

SBFC Finance Private Limited, Office NO. D-2, Ist floor, 1-2 Chowk, 1 NO. Market, Near Vishnu Devi Mandir, NIT, Faridabad – 121001.

2.                Ved  Prakash, Finance Manager, SBFC Finance Private Limited, Office NO. D-2, Ist floor, 1-2 Chowk, 1 No. Market, Near Vishnu Devi Mandir, NIT Faridabad – 121001.

3.                Mukesh, Field Officer, SBFC Finance Private Limited, Office No. D-2, 1st floor, 1-2 Chowk, 1 NO. Market, Near Vishnu Devi Mandir, NIT Faridabad – 121001.

                                                                              …Opposite parties

Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Now  amended  Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.

BEFORE:            Amit Arora……………..President

Mukesh Sharma…………Member.

Indira Bhadana………….Member.

PRESENT:                   Sh.  Sushil Kumar , counsel for the complainant.

                             Sh. Mohit , counsel for opposite parties Nos.1 to 3.

ORDER:  

                   The facts in brief of the complaint are that   the complainant  had obtained two loans one vehicle loan on vehicle No. HR-51BE-7142 which was form Axis Bank vide account No. UCR036103637367 and the installment of the above said loan  was.Rs.11,315/-.  The complainant had obtained second loan on plot which had been taken form Capri Global and the account number of the above said loan account was LNCGCNSDT10000006275 and the installment of the above said loan was Rs.26,563/-.  On 15.02.2021 opposite party No.3 came at the shop of complainant and told that he was working n SBFC Finance Pvt. Ltd. And asked his client that if his client wanted to take loan or if he had taken loan from someone then they would pay the loan from the bank i.e opposite party No.1 and provide the loan to the complainant on less interest.  The complainant told opposite party No.3 about the above two bank loans.  The opposite party No.3 told that he would talk with opposite party No.2 and clear both loan accounts of complainant.  Opposite party No.3 also assured the complainant that he would provide the loan to the complainant @ 14% p.a.    The complainant had believed the  words of opposite party No.3 and permitted opposite party No.3 for loan.  After some days the opposite parties Nos.2 & 3 came in the shop of the complainant and saw the house and shop of the complainant.  They assured that as early as soon they would complete the formalities of loan.  Opposite parties Nos.2 & 3 inspected the shop and house of the complainant many times.  Opposite parties Nos.2 & 3 obtained the documents of house, Aadhar card and other documents alongwith 11 blank signed cheques from complainant and 3 blank signed cheques from the wife of the complainant and told the complainant that they had began the formalities of loan.  The opposite parties told the complainant that they had sanctioned the loan approx. amounting to Rs.25,90,000/- in the name of the complainant.  The opposite parties had sent a copy of cheque No. 277288/- dated 28.02.2021 amounting to Rs.16,30,000/- in the name of Capri Global Capital Global in the whatsapp of the complainant and assured the complainant that they would give the cheque of loan of vehicle amounting to Rs.2,80,000/- to the bank.  The opposite parties told the complainant not to pay the amount of installment to the bank.  The complainant was having audio recording to this effect.  The opposite parties told the complainant that he would pay Rs.34,491/- per month to the opposite party No.1 and on the assurance of opposite parties the complainant had paid the first installment of the loan amounting to Rs.34,491/- to the opposite parties.The aforesaid act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint.  The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to:

a)                pay 9,50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .

b)                 pay Rs. 31,000 /-as litigation expenses.

2.                Opposite parties put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite parties refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that  the complainant had approached the answering opposite parties for availing loan facilities for his two previous loans which he had taken from other bank/company.  After verification of all the documents and other formalities, loan was approved and the complainant was asked to provide certain documents, however, the complainant made inordinate delay in providing the same.  Thus, the complainant cannot allege any unfair trade practice on the part of the answering opposite party company on this ground alone.    The opposite party company had prepared cheques for balance transfer but the complainant neither provided requisite documents nor retrieved those cheques form the office of the opposite party company despite repeated requests.  The images of the said prepared cheques were also sent on the whatsapp number of the complainant, these facts had been admitted by the complainant in his complaint..  Thus neither there was any unfair trade practice nor any deficiency of service on the part of the answering opposite parties.   It was germane to mention that vide letter dated 27.08.21, the complainant himself had cancelled his loan due to some reasons (best known to him) and also took back his all documents (property documents etc.). Opposite parties denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.

5.                In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties–Small Business FinCredit  India with the prayer to: a)  pay 9,50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .b)  pay Rs. 31,000 /-as litigation expenses.

                    To establish his case the complainant  has led in his evidence,             Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Krishan Kumar, Ex. CW-1 letter dated 1.06.2021 to Deputy Commission, Faridabad, Ex.CW-2 -   letter dated 28.02.2021 regarding offer letter for loan facility, Ex.CW3 -  photocopy of cheque dated 28.02.2021 amounting to Rs.16,30,000/-, Ex.CW-4 – whatsapp message,

                    On the other hand counsel for the opposite parties strongly agitated and opposed.  As per the evidence of the opposite parties   - affidavit of Gaurang Goel, Authorized Signatory of SBFC Finance Private Ltd,, Unit NO. 103, C & B Square, Sangam Complex, Andheri Kurla Road,  Chakala, Andheri (E), Mumbai, Ex. OP1A – Certificate, Ex.OP1A – photocopy of cheque dated 28,02,2021  amounting to Rs.16,30,000/-, Ex.OP1/C – letter  dated 27.08.2021 written by the complainant to SBFC bank.

6.                During the course of arguments, Shri Sushil Kumar, counsel for the complainant has made a statement that “I tender report of Patwari on the case file and I press only for harassment and litigation expenses and any other relief if the Commission may given to complainant.”

7.                It is evident from Ex.OP-1/C letter dated 27.08.221 the complainant himself had cancelled his loan due to some reasons (best known to him) and also took back his all documents (property documents etc.).

8.                After going through the  Ex.OP-C, the Commission is of the opinion that when the complainant himself cancelled his loan due to some reasons and also took back his  all documents (property documents etc.), the question of  harassment does not arise.  Hence, no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties have been proved.  Resultantly, the complaint is dismissed. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free  of costs.   File be consigned to the record room.

Announced on: 11.04.2023                                             (Amit Arora)

                                                                                                President

                        District Consumer Disputes

           Redressal  Commission, Faridabad.

                                                         (Mukesh Sharma)

                Member

          District Consumer Disputes

                                                                               Redressal Commission, Faridabad.

                                                           (Indira Bhadana)

                Member

          District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                 Redressal Commission, Faridabad.