Haryana

StateCommission

A/1018/2019

CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER - Complainant(s)

Versus

SUNIL KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

ABHINAY SHARMA

09 Jan 2020

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

 

First Appeal No.1018 of 2019

Date of Institution:25.11.2019

Date of Decision:09.01.2020

 

 

1.      Manager/Authorized person, Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd. SCO -9, IInd Floor Brass Market, Rewari.

 

2.      Cholamandalan Investment and Finance Company ltd. Dar House No.2, NSC Boss Road, Parrys, Chennai 60001.

 

…Appellants

Versus

 

Sunil Kumar S/o Sh.Mordhawaj, R/o Village Jadra, Tehsil and Distt. Rewari. 

 

…Respondent

 

CORAM:   Mr.Harnam Singh Thakur, Judicial Member.
                   Mrs. Manjula, Member.

 

Present:-    Ms.Navedita Sharma, Advocate for the appellants.

                  

                                      O R D E R

 

HARNAM SINGH THAKUR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

 

There is a delay of 45 days in filing the appeal, on the grounds mentioned in the application for condonation of delay and in the interest of justice, delay of 45 days is allowed.

2.      The present appeal has been preferred against the order dated 06.09.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewari (in short ‘District Forum’) vide which the complaint was allowed and  O.Ps. were directed to issue No dues Certificate to the complainant within one month in respect of his vehicle bearing registration No.HR-36X-8798 and there was no order as to cost and compensation.

3.      The brief facts giving rise to the complaint are that he purchased vehicle Mahindra Bolera in the year 2015 bearing registration No.HR-36X-8798 and got the same financed from the opposite parties.  The complainant paid all the installments regularly.  Despite several request, No due Certificate was not issued by the O.Ps.  Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

4.      Upon notice,  O.Ps. contested the complaint and alleged that complainant stood guarantor in two agreements with them. In both the agreements, borrower and guarantor failed to pay the installments.  The complainant was not entitled for any relief as prayed for.  Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

5.      After hearing both the parties, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewari (In short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 06.09.2019 and granted relief is mentioned in para No.2 of the order.

6.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.Ps. have preferred this appeal.

7.      The argument has been advanced by Ms.Navedita Sharma, the learned counsel for the appellants. With her kind assistance the entire appellate file had also been properly perused and examined.

8.      On merits, it is admitted fact that respondent-complainant had availed a loan amount from appellant for the purchase and financing of vehicle Mahindra Bolera in the year 2015 and admittedly the said loan amount has been cleared by respondent-complainant.  The only plea is taken by learned counsel for the appellants is that respondent-complainant was a guarantor for two separate loans in the names of  Ravinder and Parveen Kumar, who were defaulters and respondent- complainant being guarantor in those loan cases did not clear the outstanding loan amount.  There is no evidence on record as rightly observed by learned District forum to show that any notice was ever served upon the respondent-complainant for payment of the outstanding said loans amount.  Although, it is argued by learned counsel for the appellants that there is an arbitral award dated 14.06.2019 against Mr.Parveen Kumar, Mr.Rajesh Kumar and Sunil Kumar the present respondent-complainant.  It is observed in the said award by learned Arbitrator that a notice was served upon the present respondent-complainant, but, this contention of learned counsel for the appellants is of legal force because arbitral award is also ex parte and it cannot be said that there was effective service of the notice upon the respondent-complainant.  It is pertinent to note that the said award dated 14.06.2019 has been passed by Sole Arbitrator at Chennai (Tamilnadu).    In these circumstances if at all some recovery is to be made against the present respondent-complainant by the appellants  for other loan then certainly it can be effected independently by execution of the arbitral award.  Thus, there is no reason to withheld the ‘No dues Certificate’ in respect of vehicle purchased by respondent-complainant on the loan advanced by appellant finance company after its clearance.

9.      As a sequel to above discussion, there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum, Rewari.  Hence, the present appeal deserves dismissal.

10.    This appeal has been dismissed without issuing notice to the respondent with a view to imparting substantive justice to the parties and to save the huge expenses, which may be incurred by the respondent as also in order to avoid unnecessary delay in adjudication of the matter. In this regard, reliance can be placed on a Division Bench judgement of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court rendered in Batala Machine Tools Workshop Cooperative Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur (CWP No.9563 of 2002) decided on June 27, 2002.

 

09th  January, 2020           Manjula                                 Harnam Singh Thakur                                                      Member                                 Judicial Member                            

 

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)