Haryana

StateCommission

A/1265/2017

RAJBIR SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

TATA MOTORS FINANCE LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

GULSHAN MEHTA

25 Sep 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      1265 of 2017

Date of Institution:        25.10.2017

Date of Decision :         25.09.2018

 

Rajbir Singh s/o Sh. Chhotu Ram, Resident of 1810, Bhagat Singh Nagar, Neta Colony, Hisar-125001, Haryana.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

1.      Tata Motors Finance Limited, First Floor, Akash Plaza, above HDFC Bank, near Jindal Chowk, Delhi Road, Hisar-125001, Haryana through its Branch Manager.

2.      Tata Motors Finance Limited, DGP House, 4^th Floor, Old Prabha Devi Road, Mumbai-400025, through its authorised person.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

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

                             Mr. Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                                                                                                         

Argued by:          Shri Gulshan Mehta, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Inderjit Singh, Advocate for respondents.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

BALBIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

        This appeal has been preferred against the order dated September 06^th, 2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar (for short ‘the District Forum’).

2.                Rajbir Singh – complainant (appellant herein) at the time of purchase of Tata Magic truck vehicle bearing registration No.HR-39C-0312, got financed his vehicle for an amount of Rs.2,45,000/- from Tata Motors Finance Limited-opposite parties. An agreement was executed between the complainant and the opposite parties on August 30^th, 2010 at the time of availing loan facility and the opposite parties obtained signatures of the complainant on some blank cheques drawn at Punjab National Bank which are still with the opposite parties. The complainant never used the above mentioned truck vehicle for commercial purpose and used to pay installments of the loan amount in time. All of a sudden on April 12^th, 2013 the above mentioned truck vehicle was snatched by employees of the opposite parties illegally without any notice and information to the complainant. In this regard, First Information Report No.450 was lodged under Section 382 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station City, Hisar on April 12^th, 2013.

3.                Thereafter, the parties arrived at a mutual settlement and the complainant was asked to pay only an amount of Rs.70,000/- as full and final settlement amount vide letter dated May 17^th, 2013. However, the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.70,000/- in the account of the opposite parties on May 17^th, 2013 as per settlement. The opposite parties had assured to issue ‘No Objection Certificate’ within 30 days after payment but when the complainant visited the office of the opposite parties, they refused issuance of ‘No Objection Certificate’. The opposite parties did not issue ‘No Objection Certificate’ despite legal notice dated November 07^th, 2013.

4.                The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with a prayer to hand over the blank cheques already obtained by the opposite parties; to issue ‘No Objection Certificate’ and other documents relating to the loan transaction; to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of un-necessary harassment and mental agony; and an amount of Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.

5.                The opposite parties in their written version have taken plea that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complainant has not appeared in the proceedings of this case with clean hands and that it is not a case of deficiency in service as the complainant is not covered under the definition of ‘consumer’ as provided under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is admitted fact that the truck vehicle bearing registration No.HR-39C-0312 owned by the complainant was hypothecated with the opposite parties. An amount of Rs.2,45,000/- was advanced by the opposite parties to the complainant for purchase of the truck vehicle against Loan Cum Hypothecation Cum Guarantee. It is denied that the opposite parties ever obtained any blank cheque from the complainant at the time of obtaining loan facility. It is also denied that the complainant used to pay installments of the loan amount.

6.                In fact, the complainant failed to deposit installments of the loan amount in time. It is also denied that the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.70,000/- in his vehicle loan account. In this way, the complainant is not entitled to receive ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the opposite parties. The complainant is not entitled to receive blank cheques as well as compensation amount as claimed in the complaint. It is also denied that the complainant had purchased his vehicle in question for earning his livelihood. As per terms and conditions of the agreement, any dispute in between both the parties regarding this loan transaction is to be decided as per provisions of the Arbitration Act. The controversy in between both the parties was referred to an arbitrator at Mumbai as per terms and conditions. The findings given by the arbitrator are binding upon both the parties. It is prayed that the complaint filed by the complainant be dismissed.

7.                Parties led evidence in support of their respective claims before the District Forum.

8.                After hearing arguments, vide impugned order dated September 06^th, 2017 passed by the learned District Forum, the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed on the ground that the complainant could not prove that he deposited an amount of Rs.70,000/- with the opposite parties on May 17^th, 2013.

9.                Aggrieved with the impugned order dated September 06^th, 2017 passed by the learned District Forum, the appellant-complainant has filed the present First Appeal No.1265 of 2017 with a prayer to set aside the impugned order and to grant relief to the complainant as prayed in the complaint.

10.              We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

11.              It is admitted fact that the complainant is registered owner of his truck vehicle Tata Magic vehicle bearing registration No.HR-39C-0312. It is aldso admitted fact that purchase of the above mentioned vehicle was financed by the opposite parties- Tata Motors Finance Limited by making payment of an amount of Rs.2,45,000/-. An agreement of hypothecation was executed in between the complainant and the opposite parties. The complainant in his evidence has produced documents Exhibits C-7 to C-11 contract details instalments pattern and repayment of the loan amount. Loan cum Hypothecation agreement is Exhibit R-1. In the document Contract Details and repayment Annexure R-2, total amount due towards the complainant is shown as Rs.2,22,834.75 as on August 02^nd, 2014.

12.              It is evident from the document Annexure-3 that Shri Nitin Chavan, Chartered Accountant, having his office at Mumbai was appointed as sole arbitrator to give findings regarding the controversy involved in between the complainant and the opposite parties regarding this loan transaction. The arbitrator given his findings vide award dated June 19^th, 2012 in favour of the opposite parties. It is admitted fact that the award passed by the arbitrator has been challenged. It is also admitted fact and is evident from Annexure R-5 that petition filed by the opposite parties for execution of the award is pending in the court of District Judge, Hisar. As per version of the complainant the truck vehicle mentioned above was snatched by employees of the opposite parties on April 12^th, 2013. Regarding snatching of the truck vehicle, First Information Report No.450 was lodged in Police Station Hisar City on April 12^th, 2013 under Section 382 of the Indian Penal Code on the statement of Vijay. It is admitted fact that the criminal case registered regarding this incident is still awaiting decision in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Hisar.

13.              Version of the complainant in this case is that he used to pay installments of the loan amount regularly and during this period on May 17^th, 2013 a settlement arrived in between the complainant and the opposite parties. As per settlement, the complainant was required to pay only an amount of Rs.70,000/- as full and final payment regarding his loan amount. Copy of the letter addressed to Rajbir Singh – complainant by the opposite parties dated May 17^th, 2013 Exhibit C-2 is adduced in evidence mentioning regarding a settlement with the complainant on payment of Rs.70,000/- on or before May 31^st, 2013 and thereafter, the opposite parties shall issue No Objection Certificate after 30 days. In the document Exhibit C-8 proposed recovery amount is also mentioned as Rs.70,000/-. As per version of the complainant, he deposited an amount of Rs.70,000/- on the same date i.e. May 17^th, 2013 but the opposite parties did not issue No Objection Certificate to the complainant when he visited the office of the opposite parties after 30 days.

14.              Version of the opposite parties in this case is that the complainant time and again committed default regarding payment of installments. From the documents placed on the file mentioned above also it appears that the complainant was not used to make payment of the installments regularly in time. As per version of the opposite parties the complainant never deposited the amount of Rs.70,000/- and by this time as per account statement, the total amount due towards the complainant was Rs.2,22,834.75 as on August 02^nd, 2014. During the course of arguments and on previous dates also, the complainant was asked to produce the receipt or any other document to prove that he deposited an amount of Rs.70,000/- for satisfaction of the loan amount. Today also, at the time of arguments, the complainant could not produce any receipt regarding payment of the amount nor could produce any other document to prove that he made payment of Rs.70,000/- to the opposite parties in connection with his loan transaction.

15.              On the other side, today at the time of arguments a duly attested affidavit of Sanjib Kumar Das, authorised signatory of Tata Motors Finance Limited was filed mentioning in clear words that the complainant has not made payment or deposited an amount of Rs.70,000/- on May 17^th, 2013. It is also mentioned that the complainant was to make payment of the loan amount in 47 monthly installments. He has already made payment of an amount of Rs.1,44,007/- up to March 29^th, 2013 and now as on September 24^th, 2018 an amount of Rs.4,44,964/- is outstanding towards the complainant. In this way, the complainant failed to make payment of an amount of Rs.70,000/- on or before May 31^st, 2013. Even if findings are given that any such settlement took place in between the complainant and the opposite parties also on May 17^th, 2013, in that eventuality also, No Objection Certificate cannot be issued to the complainant as he did not deposit the amount of Rs.70,000/- within the prescribed period of time.

16.              Resultantly, it is held that the complainant is not entitled to receive ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the opposite parties. The complainant is also not entitled to receive blank cheques as the opposite parties have taken plea that no blank cheque was received from the complainant and the complainant could not adduce any convincing evidence in this regard. Moreover, in this case, criminal as well as civil litigation is going on in connection with this loan transaction. The decision of the arbitrator has been challenged before the District Judge, Hisar. In this way, the complainant is not entitled to any relief as prayed in the complaint.

17.              As a result, as per discussions above in detail we find no illegality in the impugned order dated September 06^th, 2017 passed by the District Forum. Hence, findings of the learned District Forum are upheld and the appeal stands dismissed. 

 

Announced: 25.09.2018

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

CL