1. Present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter in short called as ‘the Act’) has been filed by the complainant alleging therein that on the persuasion of representative of OP-company, the complainant agreed to get a loan of Rs.5,50,000/- from the OP-finance company against his Truck bearing registration No.HR30F-0492, Model 2005, Make-Tata bearing Chasis No.426031HUZ735359 and Engine No.50G62415050 which is in the name of complainant and is being plied for his livelihood. Thus, a Hire Purchase agreement was entered into between the complainant & the Ops and an endorsement to this effect was also entered in the registration certificate of the truck by the Registering Authority (MV)-cum-Secretary, RTA, Faridabad, Haryana on 26.08.2008. After completing the formalities, complainant contacted the OP No.3 for disbursing the loan amount but the OPs told that due to some reason, the company is not disbursing loan amount to anyone and requested the complainant to contact after 2/3 months. As such, the complainant contacted the OP No.3 in the month of January 2009 for advancement of the loan amount but the OP No.3 told the complainant that due to increase in bad debts of the company, the OP No.3 has received instructions from the OPs No.1 & 2 that loan amount will not be released till annual closing and as such, the complainant was advised to contact for loan after 31.03.2009. Thereafter, the matter was put off on one pretext or the other and ultimately, the complainant was forced to issue 20 cheques in favour of the Ops as security against the loan amount which were issued by the complainant but inspite of that the amount was not paid to the complainant. It has been further alleged by the complainant that due to Hypothecation of the truck, neither the complainant can avail the loan from any other Finance Company nor he can sale the said truck. Thus the complainant got served a registered A.D. notice dated 11.11.2010 upon the Ops but the Ops did not pay any heed to the genuine request of the complainant nor gave any reply to the said notice. Hence, the complainant has submitted that the Ops are deficient in providing services to the complainant and have also committed an unfair trade practice and prayed for acceptance of the complaint as per prayer clause.
2. Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and filed written statement submitting therein that the present complaint has been filed by the complainant on false and fabricated grounds. On merits, it has been urged that the complainant has not entered into any contract with the answering OP in relation to the finance for the vehicle in question and as such there is no privity of contract between the parties. It has also been denied by the Ops that they ever received any 20 cheques as security from the complainant. It has been further urged that endorsement of hypothecation of Tata Capital in the R.C. of the vehicle might have been wrongly mentioned by mistake of registering authority. Further, the Ops have never financed the said vehicle rather they are ready to issue No Objection Certificate to the complainant subject to furnishing of certain documents.
3. To prove his case, the complainant has tendered his affidavit Annexure CX alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-7 and closed the evidence whereas on the other hand, the counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit Annexure RW1/A, in evidence and closed the same on behalf of Ops.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record very carefully. The main grouse of the complainant is that he applied for a loan to the tune of Rs.5.50 lacs against his truck and fulfilled all the formalities of the OP-Finance Company but the OP company failed to sanction/disburse him the loaned amount. Further, a hire purchase loan agreement was also entered into between the parties on 26.08.2008 qua the said loan and HPA was also entered in the registration certificate of the truck in the name of Ops. Since, the OP company failed to disburse the loaned amount to the complainant, he requested the OP company to issue No Objection Certificate which is required to get the entry of hypothecation cancelled in the registration certificate but they did not bother to issue the same despite submitting of all the necessary documents as sought by the OP company whereas on the other hand, the contention of the OP company is that the hypothecation of their company in the R.C. of the truck in question might have been entered mistakenly by registering authority and they are ready to issue the NOC etc. to the complainant subject to furnishing of certain documents as mentioned in the written statement.
5. After hearing the learned counsel of the parties and considering the facts & records of the present case, it is clear that the complainant has applied for the said loan and the same was not disbursed by the OP company inspite of completing the formalities by the complainant such as getting the entry of HPA recorded in the name of OP company and now the OP company is disputing the same under the garb of mistakenly recorded by registering Authority which is not believable since as per provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, hypothecation of any person/company cannot be entered in the Registration Certificate of any vehicle unless and until Form No.34 of Finance Company duly stamped and signed by its authorized signatory is not issued in this regard. Therefore, we are of the confirmed view that the Ops are not only deficient in providing proper services to the complainant rather they have committed unfair trade practice in this case. Further, as per version of OP, they are ready to issue NOC to the complainant subject to furnishing of certain documents as specifically mentioned in para No.2 of written statement whereas complainant is urging that Ops are not issuing the same though he has submitted the requisite documents to Ops as per written statement which also shows deficient conduct of Ops. So, in these circumstances, we hold that Ops have committed unfair trade practice by not disbursing the loan to the complainant and also deficient in providing proper services to complainant by not issuing NOC or other clearance certificates required for getting the HPA cancelled and thus we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to comply with the following directions within thirty days from the date of communication of this order:-
(i) To issue No Objection Certificate to the complainant alongwith other requisite certificates/Forms necessitated by Registering Authority for getting the HPA cancelled in the R.C. of vehicle No.HR30F-0492.
(ii) Also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for harassment & mental agony etc. AND
- To pay a sum of Rs.3000/- as costs of litigation.
Further the award in question/directions issued above must be complied with by the OPs within the stipulated period failing which all the awarded amounts shall attract interest @ 12 % per annum for the period of default. So the complaint is allowed in the above terms. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT: 27.01.2015
