Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/892/2010

Shamsher Singh S/O.Sheo Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tata Motors Finance Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Rajeev Khurana

16 May 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA   NAGAR

                                                                                              Complaint No. 892  of  2010.

                                                                                              Date of institution: 24.09.2010.

                                                                                              Date of decision: 16.05.2016.

Shamsher Singh aged about 45 years son of Sh. Sheo Ram resident of village Kandroli, Sub Tehsil Radaur, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         …Complainant.

                                    Versus

 

Tata Motors Finance Limited, 172, Rai Market Near Rg’s Restaurant, Ambala Cantt, Ambala, through its Branch Manager.     

 

                                                                                                                                                                                         … Respondent.

                       

BEFORE          SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. Manoj Khurdi, Advocate, counsel for complainant.   

              Sh. Vikas Aggarwal, Advocate, counsel for respondent. 

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Shamsher Singh filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that in the month of February 2005 complainant took a loan from the respondent (hereinafter referred as OP) for the purpose of TATA Sumo bearing registration No. HR-36C-0093  and the loan in question was to be paid in the installments up to December 2008. The OP took several cheques from the complainant as a token of security. The complainant had already paid the entire loan amount alongwith interest thereon but till today OP failed to issue No Objection Certificate and other necessary papers despite so many requests made to the OP by the complainant. Hence, this complaint praying therein that OPs be directed to issue NOC and other necessary papers for getting the loan entry cancelled from the concerned Registration Authority and further to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.

3.                     Upon notice, OP TATA Motors Finance Limited appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as no agreement has been executed between the OP and the complainant as alleged in the complaint; complaint is not maintainable as there is a clause of Arbitration and the complainant has right to knock the door of the Arbitrator, if he has any grievances; complaint is without jurisdiction; the complainant has concealed the true facts from this Forum and on merit it has been admitted that complainant obtained a loan from the TATA Motors Finance Limited subject to terms and conditions of the agreement executed between the parties. The complainant has not made the payment of installments in time and violated the terms and conditions of the agreement and due to that the OP is entitled to get the dishonour charges as well as retainer charges and other charges from the complainant and the complainant is duly bound to pay the same. As per foreclosure account statement, till 4.12.2010 an amount of Rs. 26675.64 was due against the complainant, which has not been paid till today despite so may requests. In this way, till then the OP Company is not liable to issue NOC till payment of outstanding amount by the complainant. Hence, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of Ops and the complaint is liable to be dismissed and on merit it has further been stated that on 22.02.2005, vide agreement No. 40869907, complainant took a loan in respect of vehicle TATA Spacio bearing registration No. HR-36C-0093 and an amount of Rs. 4,44,080/- was granted as loan out of which an amount of Rs. 3,64,000/- was as principal amount and Rs. 80,080/- was as finance charges and this amount was repayable in 47 installments w.e.f. 22.02.2005 to 22.12.2008 and first installment was of Rs. 9610/- and remaining 46 installments were of Rs. 9445/- each. Lastly, prayed that on 04.12.2010, as per foreclosure account statement, an amount of Rs. 26,675.64 was due against the complainant which was not paid by him. Hence, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     To prove the case counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A and documents such as Photo copy of registration certificate as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of notice to pay the installments as Annexure C-2, Photo copy of foreclosure account statement as Annexure C-3 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Abhishek Sharma as Annexure RX and document such as Photo copy of Power of attorney as Annexure R-1 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP.

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very carefully and minutely.

7.                     It is not disputed that complainant obtained a loan from the TATA Motors Limited amounting to Rs. 3,64,000/-, which was to be paid in 47 monthly installments alongwith finance charges as well as interest and other expenses amounting to Rs. 80,080/- i.e. total amount of Rs. 4,44,080/- was repayable w.e.f. 22.02.2005 to 22.2.2008. Learned counsel for the OP during the course of arguments, gracefully admitted that complainant had already paid entire principal amount plus interest and charges except overdue charges amounting to Rs. 26675.64 and the same fact has been admitted in para No.5 of the reply on merit of the written statement by OP. We have perused the account statement (Annexure C-3) carefully and minutely from which it is clear that an amount of Rs. 26,675.64 has been levied against the complainant on account of overdue charges whereas OP Company has totally failed to convince this Forum that whether there was any agreement between the parties to charge the overdue expenses from the complainant and in the absence of any cogent evidence, we are unable to hold that OP Company is entitled to get the overdue charges from the complainant. Even, the OP Company did not bother to file the true and correct account statement before this Forum to prove their stand that an amount of Rs. 26,675.64 has been correctly levied against the complainant on account of overdue charges. As the complainant has already paid the entire amount including charges and interest to the OP, hence, we are of the considered view that OP Company has illegally withheld the NOC of the complainant in respect of vehicle bearing registration No. HR-36-C-0093, due to which, the complainant might have suffered some mental agony and harassment.

8.                     Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and quash the amount of Rs. 26,675.64 which has been levied as overdue charges and OP Company is directed not to charge an amount of Rs. 26,675.64 from the complainant as shown in the account statement (Annexure C-3) and the OP Company is further directed to issue the No Objection Certificate of vehicle bearing No. HR-36C-0093 to the complainant within a period of 30 days. The OP Company is further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2000/- as litigation expenses.  Order be complied within 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced: 16.05.2016.

                                                                                          ( ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                           PRESIDENT

 

 

 

                                                                                          (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                           MEMBER