Assam

Dibrugarh

CC/2/2021

AHSHAN HADI - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE MANAGER L&T FINANCE LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

MONIRUL HADI

09 Aug 2024

ORDER

Date of Argument – 11.10.2023 (Complainant)  

                                                                                             03.01.2024 (O.P.)  

                                                            Date of Judgment –  09.08.2024  

                

            The complainant has filed this case under section 35 of C.P. Act, 2019 claiming to direct the O.P. to pay ₹ 2,205/- which was taken illegally from the complainant’s bank Account with 21% interest, to direct the O.Ps. to provide NOC, to pay compensation of ₹ 50,000/- for the damage caused to the complainant, to pay ₹ 3,00,000/- as damages on account of physical and mental agony, cost of litigation of ₹ 10,000/- and for any other relief available.

Judgement

            The case of the complainant is that he purchased one two wheeler motor vehicle bearing Regd. No.AS06P/2941, chassis NoMD2A11CZ6ECG29511 and engine No.DHZCEG08694 which was financed by the O.P. No.2 after due verification and approval from O.P. No.1 and O.P. No.3 by entering into an agreement of loan-cum-hypothecation agreement No.2346530.

            The complainant regularly paid all the installments to O.P. No.2 and the last installment (EMI) of the loan amount has been paid to the O.P. on 12.09.2017 vide book No.HOO21788391 and receipt No.CO2179420251.

            On 05.10.2017 the O.P. No.1 fraudulently deducted an additional amount of ₹ 2,205/- only from the complainant’s bank account bearing A/c No.31185604364 of State Bank of India, Gabharupathar Branch, Dibrugarh without the knowledge and consent of the complainant. The complainant visited the office of the O.P. No.2 situated at Amolapatty, Dibrugarh several times and requested the officials to furnish him the NOC/No Due Certificate and to return the excess amount of ₹ 2,205/- deducted. But the officials of O.P. No.2 rendered a deaf ear towards the approach of the complainant by showing excuses each and every time of his visits. It is unfortunate that the opposite parties neither provided the NOC/No Due Certificate to the complainant nor refunded the additional amount deducted. At the same time the complainant also requested to a copy of statement of account and O.P. No.2 provided the same to the complainant. The photocopy of the same is annexed with this complaint as document No.4. The complainant states that it is abundantly clear that the opposite parties have mischievously and intentionally delayed in issuance of the NOC/Bank Clearance certificate with ulterior motive. On receipt of the final installment the opposite parties have also issued the foreclosure receipt for the same to the complainant.

            On 02.12.2020 the complainant again visited the office of O.P. No.2 but it is very unfortunate that the O.P. No.2 directly declined to issue NOC/No Due Certificate and also denied to refund the excess deduction for which the complainant served a lawyers notice, dated05.12.2020 upon the opposite parties and the notices were received by the O.Ps. on 17.12.2020, 19,12,2020 and 16.12.2020 respectively. Even after receipt of Lawyer’s Notice the O.Ps. neither issued NOC/No Due Certificate to the complainant nor refunded the excess amount deducted from the complainant’s bank account.

            The complainant in para 12 of his complaint has stated that on receipt of the lawyer’s notice the opposite parties on 21.12.2020 asked the complainant to collect the NOC/No Due Certificate from the O.P.No.2 but the officials of O.P. No.2 demanded a sum of ₹25,000/- from the complainant in order to provide the NOC/No Due Certificate and said that if he fails to make the payment they will not provide the NOC/No Due Certificate. The complainant claims that the facts and circumstances narrated in the complaint prima facie proves that there was serious negligence, deficiency and malpractice in trade on the part of the opposite parties in rendering proper service to the complainant.

            The complainant has suffered sufficient damages in terms of physical and mental harassment besides monetary loss. It is a gross deficiency and negligence on the part of the opposite parties and as such the O.P. is liable under law to pay adequate compensation to the complainant.

            The cause of action for filing this complaint besides other dates arose on 21.112.2020 and on each and every subsequent dates within the jurisdiction of this Commission.

            For the purpose of fees, the complaint is valued at ₹3,62,205/-.

            The complainant has prayed before the Commission to direct the Opposite Parties to :-

1. Pay ₹ 2,205/- which was taken illegally from the complainant’s bank Account with 21% interest,
2. To provide NOC, 
3.  Pay compensation of ₹ 50,000/- for the damage caused to the complainant,
4.  Pay ₹ 3,00,000/- as damages on account of physical and mental agony,
5.  Pay the cost of litigation of ₹ 10,000/- and for any other relief available.

            After registering the case notices were issued to the O.P. and they contested the case by filing their W/S. In their W/S filed jointly by O.P. No. 1, 2 & 3 have stated that the complaint is barred by laws of limitation and it was filed beyond limitation period. It is submitted that the cause of action as alleged appears on 05.10.2017 when the O.P. No.1 fraudulently deducted an additional amount of ₹2,205/- only from the complainant’s bank A/c bearing A/c No.31185604364 of State Bank of India, Gabharupathar Branch, Dibrugarh without the knowledge and consent of the complainant. The complainant has filed the instant petition after a period of 3 years, 3 months and 28 days.

            In reply to para-6 of the complaint petition the O.Ps. have submitted that several cheques issued by the complainant bounced on several dates, for example on 05.10.2015, 19.10.2015, 06.11.2016, 06.05.2017, 07.06.2017, 15.06.2017 and 10.07.2017 which caused great harassment to the opposite parties. The said statement appears from the statement of account filed by the complainant along with his complaint. The O.Ps. have submitted the electronically generated statement of account as O.P.’s document No.1.

            The O.Ps. have claimed that the complainant never visited the O.P. No.2 as stated by him in his complaint petition.

            Replying to para12 of the complaint the O.Ps. have submitted that O.P. No.2 never demanded any money from the complainant illegally as alleged. The complainant has made out a false case just to make illegal gain. They claim that there was no deficiency in service and any sort of negligence on the part of either of the opposite parties and there is no malpractice as alleged. The question of any physical, mental agony for monetary loss is not admitted by the O.Ps. The complainant is not entitled to any compensation for any other amount as prayed for in the complaint and hence the opposite parties have prayed to dismiss the complaint for the ends of justice.

            In this case the complainant submitted his evidence on affidavit on 06.04.2023.

            In his evidence the complainant has deposed that that he purchased one two wheeler motor vehicle bearing Regd. No.AS06P/2941, chassis NoMD2A11CZ6ECG29511 and engine No.DHZCEG08694 which was financed by the O.P. No.2 after due verification and approval from O.P. No.1 and O.P. No.3 by entering into an agreement of loan-cum-hypothecation agreement No.2346530.

                       Exhibit-1 is the Registration Card of the vehicle.

            The complainant regularly paid all the installments to O.P. No.2 and the last installment (EMI) of the loan amount has been paid to the O.P. on 12.09.2017 vide book No.HOO21788391 and receipt No.CO2179420251.

                        Exhibit-2 is the foreclosure charges receipt.

            On 05.10.2017 the O.P. No.1 fraudulently deducted an additional amount of ₹ 2,205/- only from the complainant’s bank account bearing A/c No.31185604364 of State Bank of India, Gabharupathar Branch, Dibrugarh without the knowledge and consent of the complainant.

Exhibit-3 is the bank passbook.

Exhibit-3(i) is the bank passbook page.

Exhibit-3(ii) is the deduction statement.

The complainant visited the office of the O.P. No.2 situated at Amolapatty, Dibrugarh several times and requested the officials to furnish him the NOC/No Due Certificate and to return the excess amount of ₹ 2,205/- deducted. But the officials of O.P. No.2 rendered a deaf ear towards the approach of the complainant by showing excuse each and every time of his visit. It is unfortunate that the opposite parties neither provided the NOC/No Due Certificate to the complainant nor refunded the additional amount deducted. At the same time the complainant also requested to issue a copy of statement of account and O.P. No.2 provided the same to the complainant. The photocopy of the same is annexed with this complaint as document No.4.

Exhibit-4 is the statement of Account.

The complainant states that it is abundantly clear that the opposite parties have mischievously and intentionally delayed in issuance of the NOC/Bank Clearance certificate with ulterior motive. On receipt of the final installment the opposite parties have also issued the foreclosure receipt for the same to the complainant.

            On 02.12.2020 the complainant again visited the office of O.P. No.2 but it is very unfortunate that the O.P. No.2 directly declined to issue NOC/No Due Certificate and also denied to refund the excess deduction for which the complainant served a lawyers notice, dated05.12.2020 upon the opposite parties and the notices were received by the O.Ps. on 17.12.2020, 19,12,2020 and 16.12.2020 respectively. Even after receipt of Lawyer’s Notice the O.Ps. neither issued NOC/No Due Certificate to the complainant nor refunded the excess amount deducted from the complainant’s bank account.

                        Exhibit-5 is the Lawyer’s notice.

                        Exhibit-6, 7 and 8 are postal receipts.

             The complainant deposed that on receipt of the lawyer’s notice the opposite parties on 21.12.2020 asked the complainant to collect the NOC/No Due Certificate from the O.P.No.2 but the officials of O.P. No.2 demanded a sum of ₹25,000/- from the complainant in order to provide the NOC/No Due Certificate and said that if he fails to make the payment they will not provide the NOC/No Due Certificate and further asked him not to visit the office of the O.P. No.2 unnecessarily unless fulfil the demand of ₹25,000/-.

            The complainant prays that the Commissio0n be pleased to grant the reliefs as prayed for in his complaint.

            Submitting their evidence jointly by O.P. No.1, 2 and 3, the opposite parties have deposed that they are all employees of a reputed financial company having its business all over India with good market and reputation among the clients/customers. They claim that the allegation of the complainant that the O.P. No.1 fraudulently deducted an additional amount of ₹ 2205 only from the bank A/c of the complainant bearing A/c No.31185604364 of State Bank of India, Gabharupather Branch, Dibrugarh without the knowledge and consent of the complainant is not true. The complainants have filed the case after a period of 3 years, 3 months and 28 days.

The opposite parties have submitted that several cheques issued by the complainant bounced on several dates, for example on 05.10.2015, 19.10.2015, 06.11.2016, 06.05.2017, 07.06.2017, 15.06.2017 and 10.07.2017 which caused great harassment to the opposite parties. The said datas appears from the statement of account filed by the complainant along with his complaint. The O.Ps. have submitted the electronically generated statement of account as O.P.’s document No.1.

            Exhibit-A is the statement of A/c.

Exhibit-A(i), Exhibit-A(ii), Exhibit-A(iii), Exhibit-A(iv), Exhibit-v, Exhibit-vi and  Exhibitg-7 are the various dates of default of the complainant.

            The complainant on those dates physically visited the office of the opposite parties and requested to excuse him for his negligence and carelessness.

            The opposite parties submitted that there is no cause of action for this case nor any cause of action ever arose as alleged in the complaint and dates shown in the complaint petition are manufactured dates just to file the instant case as no extra amount was ever deducted on 05.10.2017 as alleged. The opposite parties never demanded any money from the complainant  as alleged and he did not file any complaint at the time of alleged demand even if there was any demand.

            The opposite parties have claimed that the complainant never visited the opposite parties or to the office of the opposite parties demanding NOC/No Due Certificate and the question of return of excess deducted amount of ₹2205/- does not come, as no such money was deducted from his account at any point of time. Denying their negligence, deficiency of service and illegal practice is not true on the part of the opposite party. The opposite parties have alleged that the complaint is made out of false case to make illegal demand and to harass the opposite parties. The complainant is not entitled to any compensation/relief.

            The complainant filed his written argument on 11.10.2023 at length. Reiterating the evidence of the complainant he has submitted that the facts and circumstances narrated in the complaint prima facie proves that there is serious negligence, deficiency and malpractice in trade on the part of the opposite parties in rendering proper service. The complainant has confirmed that he has clearly proved that an amount of ₹2205/- has been deducted from his bank A/c by the finance company and he has not been provided the NOC till filing this argument.

            The opposite parties in this case filed written argument on 03.01.2024. Submitting their argument the opposite parties claim that the complaint is not maintainable in law as well as on facts. The complaint is not entitled as per provision of Consumer Protection Act. It is pertinently mentioned that it is not a competent Forum or Court to get relief or reliefs by the complainant and as such this complaint may be dismissed by the Forum. The application is barred by Law of Limitation as it is filed beyond the limitation period. They have submitted that the cause of action as alleged appeared on 05.10.2017, when opposite party No.1 company fraudulently deducted an additional amount of ₹2205/- only from the complainant’s Bank Account. The complainant filed the instant petition after a period of 3 years, 3 months and 28 days. As per section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, a consumer complaint must be filed within a span of 2 years from the date on which the cause of action or deficiency in service or defect in goods arises. Nevertheless, the law permits the consumers or aggrieved to file a complaint even after the statutory period of 2 years if the District Forum is satisfied that the complainant has genuine and valid reasons for not filing the complaint within the specified time period. The complainant did not file any limitation petition for condoning the limitation period at the time of filing the complaint.

Reiterating the same version as narrated in their evidence in the remaining parts of the written argument, the opposite parties claim to dismiss the complaint with cost.

Points for decision

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer under Consumer Protection Act.
2. Whether this Commission has proper jurisdiction to try the case.
3. Whether the complaint was filed within the limitation period
4. Whether the opposite parties are liable for deficient and negligent service.
5. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for.

Decisions and reasons thereof.

1. We have examined the averments of the complaint and documents filed along with the complaint and after perusal of these we have come to the conclusion that the complainant is a consumer of the O.P. under Consumer Protection Act. This fact is not denied by the opposite parties anywhere.

 

2. The complainant is a resident of Dibrugarh town and O.P. No.2 is having its branch office at Dibrugarh town. The reliefs claimed by the complainant is also within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission and as such this Commission has proper territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to try the instant case.

 

3. On careful perusal of the complaint, evidence in affidavit along with exhibits and his written argument we have found that the complainant purchased his two wheeler motor vehicle bearing Regd. No.AS06P-2941 financed by O.P.No.2. Complainant’s exhibit No.1, the certificate of registration shows that the vehicle bearing Redg. No.AS06P-2941 was registered on 12.11.2014 with the DTO, Dibrugarh. The complainant has claimed that he paid all the installments of loan to O.P. No.2 regularly and the last installment had been paid on 12.09.2017. The complainant’s exhibit No.2, the foreclosure receipt shows that on 12.09.2017 O.P. No.2 received ₹22,770/- as foreclosure charges from the complainant.

   As claimed by the complainant the O.P. No.1 fraudulently deducted an additional amount of ₹2205/- from the bank account of the complainant on 05.10.2017. Complainant’s exhibit No.3(ii) shows that an amount of ₹2205/- was debited from the S.B. A/c of the complainant (A/c No.31185604364) and credited to ‘Family Credit Ltd.’. The complainant has stated that he visited several times the office of the O.P. No.2 for obtaining the NOC/No Due Certificate and requested O.P. No.2 to return him the excess deducted amount of ₹2205/-. As claimed by the complainant after receipt of pleader’s notice he was called by the opposite party to collect the NOC/No Due Certificate from the office of O.P. No.2 and this time they demanded a sum of ₹25,000/- from the complainant for providing the NOC/No Due Certificate. The opposite parties, on the other hand have claimed that the complainant became a habitual defaulter of loan EMI and the cheques given by the complainant in favour of the O.P. on dates 05.10.2015, 19.10.2015, 06,11,2016, 06,05,2017, 07.06.2017, 15.06.2017 and 10.07.2017 were dishonoured due to non-availability of funds and other lapses of the complainant.  O.P’s exhibit-A is the statement of account of L & T Finance Limited and exhibit-A(1), A(2), A(3), A(4), A(5), A(6) and exhibit-A(7) are the dates where the complainant defaulted in payment of EMI. From perusal of these exhibits we have seen that the cheques issued by the complainant were bounced and the reason shown as “payment stopped by drawer”.

We have found no reason to disbelieve the plea of the opposite parties regarding the default in payment of EMI by the complainant. Moreover we find it difficult to understand the complainant’s claim that an amount of ₹2205 had been fraudulently collected by the O.P. company. Because as per complainant’s exhibit No.3(ii) though an amount of ₹2205/- has been shown as deducted from the account of the complainant and shown it to be credited to the account of Family Credit Ltd., which is not an opposite party in the instant case. And moreover both the parties have failed to give explanation regarding this issue. However, as the final payment of EMI has been paid and foreclosure receipt was issued by the opposite parties, it is definitely their bounded duty to issue NOC/No Due Certificate to the complainant. As claimed by the complainant if any monetary demand has been made by the O.Ps. for issuing NOC/No Due Certificate it is highly condemnable and we want to warn the opposite parties to refrain from such unfair activities.

In our minute observations we have found that the complainant has not been successful in proving the fraudulent deduction of ₹2205/- by the opposite party. But we found opposite parties are liable for deficient services towards the complainant. Because immediately after giving foreclosure receipt closing the loan A/c they should have issued NOC/No Due Certificate to the complainant but they failed to do so for which the complainant has to take help of this Commission. Under above observations and findings this Commission directs O.P. No.2:

1. To issue NOC/No Due Certificate to the complainant within 15(Fifteen) days from the date of receipt of this judgement and order.

This Commission further directs all the opposite parties to pay to the complainant a sum of ₹10,000/- as compensation for causing physical harassment and mental agony to the complainant and

2. To pay a sum of ₹5000/- as cost of litigation.

All the awarded amounts be deposited into the credit of this Commission by the opposite parties within 30(thirty) days from the date of receipt of this judgement and order.

                        The instant C.C. No.02/2021 is accordingly disposed of on contest.

Send copy of this judgement and order to the O.P. for compliance. Complainant is to take step.