Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/514

Sanjeev Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Standard Chartered Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Rakesh Sabharwal Adv.

27 Oct 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:514 dated 05.11.2019.                                                         Date of decision: 27.10.2023.

 

Sanjeev Kumar aged about 54 years S/o. Sh. Dharm Chand, R/o. House No.61-63, Mohalla Fatehganj, Samrala Road, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                             ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. Standard Chartered Bank, Malhara Road, Ludhiana through its Branch Manager.
2. Arms, A division of Assets Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd., SCO No.404, 4^th Floor, Apra Tower, SCO 130-132, Feroze Gandhi Market, Backside of A Hotel, Ludhiana through its Manager.                                                                                                      …..Opposite parties 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Rakesh Sabherwal, Advocate.

For OP1                         :         Exparte.

For OP2                         :         Sh. Rahul Rajput, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that earlier complaint filed by the complainant on same subject matter was withdrawn due to technical defect with permission to file fresh complaint. The complainant submitted that he purchased a car bearing registration No.PB-10-BC-2054 by getting loan from opposite party No.1 vide loan account No.41469518 in the year 2003. He regularly paid all the EMIs along with interest and NOC was issued by opposite party No.1 and the complainant sold the car which was transferred in the name of new purchaser. The complainant further stated that after receiving the payment inclusive of interest from him, opposite party No.1 sold securities/assets to opposite party No.2 including his loan account. Moreover, nothing was due towards the complainant and the opposite parties created forged and fabricated documents fully knowing well that nothing was due towards the complainant. Opposite party No.2 claimed that they have purchased the default loan amount of Rs.41,282/- and now it further claimed penalties of Rs.5,14,847/- which has been illegally imposed on his account. In fact, nothing was due to the complainant as he had already paid the due amount to the bank. Opposite party No.1 allegedly sold the intend for Rs.75,66.28 as pending amount to opposite party No.2 who had forwarded the data of loan of complainant to CIBIL showing an outstanding amount of Rs.6,31,795/- against the complainant which is illegal and against the norms of the bank. The complainant further stated that the said information was supplied to CIBIL without any verification from any side and he has no liability against the opposite parties as he had paid all the dues to opposite party No.1 prior to transfer of account to opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.1 has no authority to sell/transfer account of the complainant in favour of opposite party No.2 which is illegal act and amounts to deficiency in service. Moreover, as per statement of accounts zero balance shown on 31.05.2018 and 01.04.2017. 

                   The complainant further submitted that he applied housing loan of Rs.15,00,000/- with Punjab National Loan but his application was rejected on account of wrong information/figure supplied by opposite parties to CIBIL causing loss of repudiation, social status, dignity and goodwill  in the society as well as in financial circles. This amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties due to which he has suffered mental pain and agony, harassment and financial loss. The complainant requested the opposite parties to correct their accounts and provide correct information to CIBIL and to correct the credit score of the complainant but they refused to do so. The complainant sent legal notice dated 01.08.2019 through his counsel but to no effect. Hence this complaint whereby a prayer has made to direct opposite parties to pay Rs.15,00,000/- on account of mental tension harassment, pain and suffering besides litigation expenses of Rs.22,000/-.    

2.                Notice to opposite party No.1 was sent through registered post on 18.12.2019 but none turned up on behalf of opposite party No.1 and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 12.02.2020.

3.                Upon notice, opposite party No.2 appeared and filed written statement and assailed the complaint on the ground of suppression of material facts, the complaint being time barred, the allegations made in complaint are not true and correct, the complaint is false and frivolous and vexatious etc. Opposite party No.2 alleged that the complainant took loan against vehicle from opposite party No.1 and by assignment agreement dated 13.04.2010, opposite party No.1 as Assignor/Seller and opposite party No.2 as Assignee/Purchaser, assigned the loan of the complainant to opposite party No.2 together with all right, title and interest in the financing document and any underline security interest, pledges and or guarantees in respect of the said loan thus opposite party No.2 stepped into the shoes of opposite party No.1 and as per assignment agreement at serial No.5039 name of the complainant along with the principle outstanding on 31.01.2010 is mentioned i.e. Rs.41,282/- and as per the account statement of opposite party Rs.6,92,840.51 is pending towards the complainant loan account as on 25.11.2020. Opposite party No.2 denied any deficiency in service on its part.    

                   On merits, opposite party No.2 reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections. Opposite party No.2 denied any deficiency in service on its part and in the end, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                In support of his claim, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex. CA in which he reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered documents Ex. C1 is the legal notice dated 01.08.2019, Ex. C2 and Ex. C3 are the copies of postal receipts, Ex. C4 is the copy of email, Ex. C5 is the copy of loan statement, Ex. C6  is the copy of registration certificate, Ex. C7 is the copy of CIBIL, Ex. C8 is the copy of statement of CIBIL, Ex. C9 is the copy of letter dated 01.11.2019 written by Punjab National Bank to the complainant, Ex. C10 is the copy of CIBIL score statement,  Ex. C11 is the copy of Experian score and closed the evidence.

5.                Opposite party No.2 failed to adduce any evidence despite grant of sufficient opportunities and imposition of costs of Rs.1000/-, as such, evidence of opposite party No.2 was closed by order vide order dated 14.11.2022.

6.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents and written statement produced on record by both the parties.  

7.                Admittedly, the complainant purchased a car bearing registration No.PB-10-BC-2054 by availing loan facilities from OP1 in the year 2003. Now the complainant has raised the grievance against the OPs that despite clearance of loan amount, they have transferred his account to OP2 and provided certain information to the CIBIL whereby his credit score has been affected adversely. The complainant had been repeatedly alleging the payment of entire loan amount and issuance of NOC by OP1 but the complainant has not produced any evidence to substantiate his claim. He has referred to a email/letter dated 08.07.2019 Ex. C4 whereby NIL balance has been reflected in the said loan account but the letter is of no help as NIL balance was shown when loan account was sold/assigned to OP2. The loan was assigned as per agreement dated 13.04.2020 for Rs.41,282/-which was outstanding as on 31.01.2020. Now after assignment, an outstanding loan of Rs.6,92,840.51 has been shown from the documents produced by OP2. The counsel for the complainant has also contended that since the vehicle has been transferred in the name of the subsequent purchased and that can be done only when the NOC was issued by OP1. The complainant was well within his right to summon the record of registering authority to prove the existence/issuance of NOC stated to have been issued by OP1 but no such record was produced or summoned. From the facts and circumstances, it is evidence that OP1 has acted as per the mandate of law by assigning the loan to OP2 and there is no deficiency on their part. Further it is settled law that the complainant was required to prove his case and to discharge initial onus by leading cogent and convincing evidence but he has failed to do so.

8.                In this regard, reference can be made to SGS India Ltd. Vs Dolphin International Ltd. in Civil Appeal No.5759 of 2009 decided on 06.10.2021 (LL 2021 SC 544) by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India whereby it has been held as under:-

’19.  The onus of proof of deficiency in service is on the complainant in the complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is the complainant who had approached the Commission, therefore, without any proof of deficiency, the opposite party cannot be held responsible for deficiency in service.

In the above cited case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has placed reliance on its own judgment reported as Ravneet Singh Bagga v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines & Anr. whereby it has been held that the burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it. “6. The deficiency in service cannot be alleged without attributing fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service. The burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it. The complainant has, on facts, been found to have not established any wilful fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the service of the respondent.”

‘20. This Court in a Judgment reported as Indigo Airlines v. Kalpana Rani Debbarma & Ors. (LL 2021 SC 544) held the initial onus to substantiate the factum of deficiency in service committed by the opposite party was primarily on the complaint. This Court held as under:-

“28. In our opinion, the approach of the Consumer Fora is in complete disregard of the principles of pleadings and burden of proof. First, the material facts constituting deficiency in service are blissfully absent in the complaint as filed. Second, the initial onus to substantiate the factum of deficiency in service committed by the ground staff of the Airlines at the airport after issuing boarding passes was primarily on the respondents. That has not been discharged by them. The Consumer Fora, however, went on to unjustly shift the onus on the appellants because of their failure to produce any evidence. In law, the burden of proof would shift on the appellants only after the respondents/complainants had discharged their initial burden in establishing the factum of deficiency in service.”

In the given facts and circumstances, the complainant has failed to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties by any cogent and convincing evidence.

9.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

10.              Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                          Member                            Member                                       President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:27.10.2023.

Gobind Ram.