Haryana

StateCommission

A/102/2016

MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SURENDER - Opp.Party(s)

S.C.THATAI

12 Aug 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      102 of 2016

Date of Institution:      01.02.2016

Date of Decision :       12.08.2016

 

Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Limited, Office at Raj Mahal Building, baba Tarana Road, near Gandhi Chowk, Sonipat, Tehsil and District Sonipat, through Shri Brahamjeet Singh, Territory Legal Manager.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party

Versus

 

Surender s/o Late Sh. Suraj Bhan, Resident of Village Nahri, Tehsil and District Sonipat.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

 

Present:               Shri S.C. Thatai, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Ram Pal Verma, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Limited-Opposite Party, is in appeal against the order dated December 17^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonipat (for short ‘the District Forum’), whereby complaint filed by Surender-complainant/respondent, was allowed directing the appellant-opposite party to issue ‘No Objection Certificate’ (NOC) to the complainant, with respect to his loan account.

2.                The complainant-respondent, purchased tractor by raising loan of Rs.2,40,000/-  from the appellant-opposite party.  He repaid Rs.3,30,000/- on 25.03.2010. The opposite party demanded Rs.1,32,558/- more from the complainant showing that as amount due towards the loan amount and did not issue NOC. The complainant approached the opposite party several times to issued the NOC but to no effect. Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed.

3.                The opposite party in its written version stated that the complainant failed to deposit the instalments within time and for that reason the additional financial charges, that is, Rs.1,32,558/- was due as on 25.03.2010 from the complainant towards the loan amount. It was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.                After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum allowed complaint and directed the opposite party as detailed in paragraph No.1 of this order.

5.                The solitary submission raised on behalf of the appellant-opposite party is that the complainant-respondent was defaulter with respect to the payment of instalments in time and for that reason the amount of Rs.1,32,558/- was outstanding against the complainant.

6.                The contention raised is not tenable. The opposite party has not been able to produce any cogent evidence to prove that how the amount of Rs.1,32,558/- was outstanding against the complainant. Indisputably, the complainant repaid the amount of Rs.3,30,000/- which he was to pay to the opposite party. Thus, he repaid the entire amount of loan and only one or two instalments may be late deposited for which the huge amount of Rs.1,32,558/- cannot be outstanding. Thus, in absence of any cogent and convincing evidence it cannot be said that the amount demanded by the opposite party from the complainant was justified. So, the impugned order does not require any interference.

7.                In view of the above, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

 

Announced: 12.08.2016

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

CL