Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/198/2024

JITENDER SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE ICICI BANK LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

04 Nov 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/198/2024
Date of Institution	:	12/4/2024
Date of Decision	:	4/11/2024

 

Jitender Singh son of Sh. Ishwar Singh, resident of Village Ban, P.O. Ladwa, Tehsil Ladwa, District Kurukshetra (Haryana).

Complainant

VERSUS

1. The ICICI Bank Ltd., SCO No. 127/128, Sector 17 C, Chandigarh through its Manager/Authorized Officer/Authorized Singnatory

2. The EM PEE MOTORS Ltd. Plot no. 177 H, Industrial Area, Phase 1, Chandigarh-160002. THRUGH ITS MANAGER.

...Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. K.L. Saini, Advocate for complainant
	:	Sh. Kartik, Advocate for OP  No.1
	:	Complaint against OP No.2 dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 3.6.2024.

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the opposite parties  (hereinafter referred to as the OPs). The brief facts of the case are as under :-
   1. It transpires from the averments as projected in the consumer complaint that the complainant had purchased   a car (Corolla Altis) (hereinafter referred to be subject car)bearing  registration No.CH01AX6585  from Opposite party No.2, which was hypothecated (HPA/Lease) by Opposite party No.1. Copy of registration  certificate is annexed as Annexure C-1.  After purchasing the subject car the complainant requested for supply of valid copy of NOC  of the subject vehicle from Opposite party No.2 and Opposite party No.2 informed that NOC has to be issued by Opposite party No.1  as the subject car was HPA/Lease by it.  Thereafter the complainant approached Opposite party No.2 several times with the request to issue NOC but the same was neither issued by Opposite party No.1 nor by Opposite party No.2. On 20.8.2019 the Opposite party No.2 passed resolution Annexure C-2  in favour of the complainant authorizing him on its behalf to appear and act in all courts and tribunals/MACT with respect to the legal proceedings of the subject car  and engaged an advocate.   Thereafter the complainant through his advocate has sent legal notice  Annexure
      C-3 dated 10.10.2023  to Opposite party No.1  with the request to supply valid NOC and when nothing was done again he sent reminder Annexure C-4 to Opposite party No.1  but nothing was done by it. In this manner, the aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
   2. OP No.1 resisted the consumer complaint and filed its written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of  maintainability,  cause of action, concealment of facts and non-joinder of necessary party and it is averred that there is no deficiency and unfairness on  the part of the answering Opposite party. It is alleged that it is only dealership which can explain how the hypothecation of the bank raised on the subject car and as the complainant has stepped into the shoes of Opposite party No.2 dealership onus lies upon the complainant to explain how hypothecation of Opposite party No.1 has been put on the RC and unless the complainants submits all the details  and also that the entire loan amount has been re-paid to the financer, NOC cannot be issued with respect to the subject car. It is further alleged that the complainant in the present case has himself alleged in the complaint that the subject car is in the name of Opposite party No.2 from whom he has purchased the same but till date as the RC is in the name of the Opposite party No.2 which bears hypothecation endorsement, it is clear that there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between the complainant and the answering Opposite party.   It is the Opposite party No.2 who is the proper authority to furnish the details of loan and provide clarification as to how hypothecation was endorsed on the RC and also if any loan has been availed or the details of the alleged amount paid to the financer.  Not only this, the complainant is required to provide copy of sale invoice and sale certificate issued by car seller to verify the hypothecation details and in the absence of the same the answering Opposite party is unable to find  the loan details.   On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been re-iterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
   3. Opposite party No.2 in its reply took preliminary objections of  maintainability,  cause of action, concealment and jurisdiction and stated that in fact Opposite party No.2 is dealer-cum-seller of the subject car, which was got financed from Opposite party No.1 and no liability can be fastened against the answering Opposite party. On merits it is alleged that question of issuance of NOC as desired by the complainant solely lies with Opposite party No.1   and the answering Opposite party has nothing to do with the matter in question.  The resolution only passed in favour of the complainant just to help the complainant and not for any other reasons.
   4. However, the complaint qua Opposite party No.2 was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 3.6.2024 in pursuance of separate statement recorded of the even date of counsel for complainant.
   5. Complainant chose not to file rejoinder.
2. In order to prove their respective claims the contesting parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and also gone through the file carefully.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the contesting parties that OPNo.2 is still the registered owner of the subject car, which was got financed by it from Opposite party No.1, regarding which endorsement of HPA/lease  of ICICI bank Ltd. i.e. Opposite party No.1 has been entered as is also evident from copy of RC Annexure C-1, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if  the Opposite party No.1 is unjustified in not issuing NOC qua the subject car to the complainant and same amounts to deficiency in service on its part and the complainant is entitled for relief as prayed for or if the complaint being false and frivolous is liable to be dismissed as is the defence of the Opposite Parties.
   2. As per case of the complainant he had purchased the subject car from Opposite party No.2 and when he approached the Opposite Parties for issuance of NOC, the Opposite party No.2 vide resolution Annexure C-2 had authorized him to approach the competent courts/commissions for initiating  legal proceedings with respect of the subject car. However, there is no iota of evidence on record  that on which date the complainant has become owner of the subject car or by purchasing the same from Opposite party No.2 especially when the complainant has failed to prove any sale invoice  or any document showing that the subject car was sold by the Opposite party No.2 to the complainant. Moreover, the resolution Annexure C-2 nowhere indicates that Opposite party No.2 has sold the subject car to the complainant rather it indicates that the complainant has been authorized by Opposite party No.2  to appear and act in all courts/commission/tribunal/MACT to receive the decreetal amount and compensation in execution proceedings in respect of subject car and to do all other acts including to engage an advocate, making it clear that in fact the complainant has been authorized to appear on behalf of Opposite party No.2. However, the complainant has filed the present complaint against Opposite party No.2 but later on vide his separate statement dated 3.6.2024 has withdrawn the complaint against Opposite party No.2 as result of which the complaint against Opposite party No.2 was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 3.6.2024, which shows that the complainant has filed the instant complainant against Opposite party No.1 in connivance with Opposite party No.2 without any cogent and concrete evidence in hand just to extract money from Opposite party No.1 the financer  as neither  the complainant the so called purchaser of the subject car nor the Opposite party No.2 have given details of the loan obtained by Opposite party No.2  from Opposite party No.1 through whom the subject car was got financed.
   3. Moreover, for getting the entry of hypothecation  removed from the RC of vehicle, the loanee (borrower) needs  to follow the following procedures:-
      1. First the loanee needs to repay the bank or financer the loan amount and upon closer of the loan, the bank/financer will issue a NO Objection Certiricate (NOC)  alongwith form 35.
   4. In the case in hand, as it is an admitted case of the parties that neither the complainant nor the Opposite party No.2 could give details of the loan obtained from Opposite party No.1 from whom the subject car was got financed and also that the subject car is still registered in the name of the Opposite party No.2 who has authorized the complainant to file complaint and the complainant has also filed complaint against the Opposite party No.2, which proves their connivance with each other and also that there is no fact and evidence on record  in order to prove that Opposite party No.2 or the complainant has repaid the entire loan amount, it is safe to hold the complainant is not consumer qua Opposite party No.1 and as such the complaint is not maintainable against Opposite party No.1 and the same is liable to be dismissed.
4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
5. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
6. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 4/11/2024			[Pawanjit Singh] President
mp
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member