District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tarn Taran.

C.C No                 :  51 of 2014

Date of Institution  : 05-08-2014

Date of Decision    :  17.03.2015

Gurbhej Singh son of Santokh Singh Caste Jat Sikh, resident of Village: Pandori Golla, Tehsil & District Tarn Taran.

                                                                   …Complainant

Versus

1. Sonalika Tractor Agency, Sirhali Road, Tarn Taran through its Manager/ Partner/ Owner Sarabjit Singh.
2. Sarabjit Singh, Manager/ Partner/ Owner of Sonalika Tractor Agency, Sirhali Road, Tarn Taran.
3. Jasbir Singh, Partner/ Owner of Sona Sonalika Tractor Agency, Sirhali Road, Tarn Taran.
4. MAGMA FINCORP LIMITED, having its registered office at 24 Park Street, Kolkata-700016.

…Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Section 12  & 13 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date.

For the Complainant                    : Sh.Gagandeep Singh, Advocate

For Opposite Parties No.1 to 3   : Sh. Amandeep Singh Dhillon, Advocate

For the Opposite Party No.4     : Sh.Sandeep Kapoor, Advocate

Quorum:               Sh. S.K. Goel, President.

Sh. R.D. Sharma, Member.

Smt.Jaswinder Kaur Dolly, Member

Order dictated by Sh. S.K.Goel, President

1. Sh.Gurbhej Singh, complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short ‘the Act’) against Sonalika Tractor Agency, Sirhali Road, Tarn Taran through its Manager/ Partner/ Owner Sarabjit Singh and others (for short ‘the opposite parties No. 1 to 3) and MAGMA FINCORP LIMITED, having its registered office at 24 Park Street, Kolkata-700016 (for short ‘the opposite party No. 4).
2. The facts emerging from the complaint are that the complainant purchased a tractor bearing registration No. PB46-F-8208 from the opposite parties and took a loan for a sum of Rs. 4,85,000/- against the said tractor. It was told by the owners that the price of the old tractor to the tune of Rs. 2,20,000/- would be deducted. However the value of the new tractor Model D1-750 as per details given by the company was Rs. 4,65,000/- and the opposite party deducted Rs. 1,72,000/- as price of old tractor. The opposite parties also opened a bank account in Oriental Bank of Commerce stating deposit of Rs. 5,000/- but only Rs. 1,000/- was deposited in his account No. 01182151007837. Thus it is alleged that the opposite parties have played fraud upon the complainant.  
3. It is further alleged that new tractor purchased by the complainant was got financed by the opposite party for a sum of Rs. 2,97,059/- after deducting the price of the old tractor whereas total price of the new tractor was Rs. 5,17,059/- with the interest at the rate of 14% per annum. It is further alleged on the basis of details written by owner himself, the complainant purchased the said tractor. It is further alleged that after completing all formalities regarding the purchase and loan amount the complainant used the tractor for livelihood. It is further pleaded that the complainant paid installments regularly and has paid Rs. 5,70,000/- approximately to the opposite party No. 4. It is further pleaded that the complainant requested the opposite party to return the blank cheques given to them but they did not return the blank cheques till date. It is further averred that after some time the complainant requested the opposite party to supply the account statement with regard to the loan if any due and he surprised to know that Rs. 70,000/- were still due against the complainant. It is pleaded that the opposite parties have threatened to snatch the tractor in question. It is further pleaded that there is nothing due against the complainant. Rather he has paid excess amount to the tune of Rs. 70,000/-. Hence the present complaint is filed for seeking the following reliefs:-

(i)      The opposite parties alongwith their associates/ recovery agents may kindly be restrained from snatching/ capturing the Tractor in question fro the custody of complainant.

(ii)      The opposite parties may kindly be directed to provide the copies of complete loan file including the loan agreement, guarantee agreement and other relevant documents to the complainant regarding the raising of the loan of the tractor in question and the installments paid by the complainant to the opposite party.

3. The opposite parties may kindly be ordered to give compensation to the tune of Rs. 70,000/- paid as excessive amount towards the loan in question and Rs. 50,000/- to the complainants on the account of mental tension, pain and agony alongwith the litigation and other misc. expenses to the tune of Rs. 20,000/-
4. The opposite parties may be directed to charge interest over the loan amount of the complainant at the rate of  6% per annum, being an agriculture labourer.

4. Upon notice, the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 filed a joint written version taking preliminary objections on the ground of maintainability, mis joinder of parties, suppressing the material facts, locus standi and estoppel. On merits, it is pleaded that the complainant purchased said tractor and took loan for a sum of Rs. 4,85,000/-. However a sum of Rs. 2,20,000/- of the price of old Eicher Tractor was  received by the complainant in cash and thereafter the new tractor Sonalica 750 was handed over to the complainant. The opposite parties No. 1 to 3 have denied the other contents of the complaint and finally prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. The opposite party No. 4 filed a written version taking preliminary objections on the ground of territorial jurisdiction, maintainability, locus standi, time barred and complainant is not a consumer. On merits, it is pleaded that the loan agreement vide proposal No. PG/0041/A/07/100003 was entered in to by the complainant to purchase the tractor on 10.8.2008 vide which the complainant borrowed a sum of Rs. 3,17,400/- from the replying opposite party. The said loan was repayable alongwith interest in 59 monthly installments amounting to Rs. 5,44,886/-. It is further submitted that at present , the complainant has paid all sums due to the opposite party in connection with the above said loan agreement and nothing is due from the complainant. Further N.O.C has been issued to the complainant in this regard. However they have denied taking of blank cheques. They have denied the other allegations of the complainant and finally prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
6. In order to prove his case the complainant has tendered in to evidence his affidavit Ex. C.1 and affidavit of Daljit Singh Ex. C.2 and closed the evidence.

7. To rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 tendered in to evidence affidavit of Jasbir Singh Ex. OPs 1 to 3 and closed the evidence.
8. The opposite party NO. 4 tendered in to evidence affidavit of Daljeet Singh Ex. OP4/1 alongwith document Ex. OP4/2 and closed the evidence.
9. We have heard the Ld.  Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.   
10. Firstly the counsel for the complainant has submitted that the opposite parties have threatened to snatch the tractor in question despite the payment of all dues to the opposite parties. On the other hands, Ld. Counsel for the opposite party has contended that opposite parties have never threatened the complainant to repossess the tractor. It is also relevant to refer the averments mentioned in the written version filed by the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 wherein Para No. 3 of the preliminary objection they have specifically mentioned that they never threatened the complainant for recovery of balance loan amount nor they ever threatened to snatch the tractor to the complainant. Similarly in the written version of the opposite party in Para NO. 8 of the preliminary objection it is specifically mentioned that the complainant has paid all the amounts due and further stated that nothing is due from the complainant and even N.O.C. has been issued to the complainant. Thus the opposite party has specifically denied the threat or snatching the vehicle in question. Moreover the complainant has not placed on record any notice or document to show that he has been ever threatened by the opposite parties in this regard. Therefore the first relief is relief is rendered infructious.
11. Regarding the second relief qua interest at the rate of 6% instead of 14% per annum, the complainant has been miserably failed to place on record any agreement to this effect. Moreover the opposite party is a private company and the agreement between them is material document and parties are bound by the terms of the agreement. In the absence of any document or Govt. instructions for payment of 6 % interest it cannot be held that opposite party cannot charge agreed rate of interest. Hence, no relief can be given under this head.
12. Coming to the third relief relating to excess payment of Rs. 70,000/- it is relevant to refer the statement of account Ex. OP4/2 wherein the debt amount is shown as  Rs. 5,44,886/- and the received amount is shown as Rs. 5,44,886/-. It is also the case of the opposite party that the entire loan amount was paid by the complainant and nothing is due. Moreover the complainant has not led any evidence that he has paid Rs. 70,000/- as excess amount over and above the stipulated amount. Thus in the absence of any cogent document on record this Forum is not in a position to hold that the complainant has paid Rs. 70,000/- as excess amount. Therefore no relief can be given under this head. Moreover in order to prove that Rs. 70,000/- was paid excess then this matter can be proved by the parties only by leading evidence and proceedings in the Consumer Forum are of summary nature.
13. As a result of above discussion, there is no merit in the present complaint and same is dismissed with no order as to costs. However the complainant is at liberty to approach the Civil court if he so desires. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.                 

Announced in open Forum                                             

Dated: 17.03.2015                                                   President

Member    Member