PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against the order dated 31.7.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant). 2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant availed of a loan of Rs.2,20,000/- on 28.7.2007, from the Opposite Party(now respondent) for the purchase of Indica Car, bearing registration No.HR-49-FT-0362. According to the loan agreement, the complainant was to repay the total amount Rs.2,92,800/- in 48 equated monthly installments of Rs.6100/- each. It was stated that after paying all the loan instalments till July, 2011, the complainant requested the Opposite Party to issue ‘No Due Certificate’, but it instead of issuing the same, demanded extra money, which was totally unjustifiable. It was further stated that a legal notice dated 24.8.2011 (Annexure A) was sent to the Opposite Party, but to no avail. It was further stated that the aforesaid act of the Opposite Party, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed. 3. The Opposite Party, in its written version, admitted the disbursement of loan, as well as execution of loan agreement (Annexure R-1). It was stated that the complainant was a regular defaulter of making timely payment of loan instalments. It was further stated that as per statements of account (Annexures R-2 to R-4), an amount of Rs.26,047.68 was still due, against the complainant, which she did not clear, and, therefore, she was not entitled to get ‘No Objection Certificate’. It was denied that the Opposite Party was deficient, in rendering service, or indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong. 4. The Parties led evidence, in support of their case. 5. After hearing the Counsel for the Parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint, holding that the Opposite Party, was not deficient, in rendering service, as the amount due to it, against the complainant, was not paid by the latter, and, as such, ‘No Due Certificate’ could not be issued. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant. 7. We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 8. The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that the complainant, no doubt, availed of loan, from the Opposite Party. He further submitted that all the instalments of loan, due from time to time, were paid by the complainant, till July,2011 alongwith additional amount of Rs.3850/-.He further submitted that no other amount was due, against the complainant, to the Opposite Party, but it was arbitrarily demanding extra amount and refused to issue ‘No Due Certificate’. He further submitted that, as such, the Opposite Party was deficient, in rendering service and also indulged into unfair trade practice. He further submitted that the District Forum fell into a grave error, in dismissing the complaint. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal, is liable to be set aside. 9….. Admittedly, loan in the sum of Rs.2,92,800/- was availed of by the complainant, from the Opposite Party. The amount of loan was to be repaid by the complainant in 48 equated monthly instalments of Rs.6100/- each . Annexure R1 is the agreement entered into between the parties, at the time of advancement of loan. Clause-9 of this Agreement reads as under ; “9. OBLIGORS UNDERTAKING AND OBLIGATIONS:- (a) the Borrower’s liability and obligations to repay the amounts of the Loan, interest thereon, Delayed Payment Charges, costs, fees, chares, expenses and all other monies as may be payable under this Loan Agreement shall be absolute and unconditional and the Borrower shall pay to the Lender the same, regardless of any circumstances and disputes, and with time being the essence of the contracts; 10. From the afore-extracted clause, it is proved that the complainant being the borrower, was liable to pay interest, delayed payment charges, costs etc. Since the complainant was signatory to the agreement, he was bound by the terms and conditions of the same. Against the self-serving statement of the complainant, in the shape of affidavit, the Opposite Party placed on record the statements of account Annexures R-2 to R-4, the genuineness whereof cannot be disputed. It is evident from Annexure R4, the statement of account dated 15.5.2012, that a sum of Rs.26047.48p was shown as balance, against the complainant. The complainant could not produce any cogent and convincing evidence, to rebut the statements of account Annexures R2 to R4. There is also no other circumstance, available, on the record, that these statements were, in any way, ingenuine or fabricated. In the face of the statements of account, referred to above, which were prepared, on the basis of books of account, maintained by the Opposite Party, in the regular course of its business, the affidavit of the complainant, was of no avail. Since the balance amount of Rs. 26047.48p, which was due to the Opposite Party, against the complainant, was not paid by her, it (Opposite Party) was right, in denying the issuance of ‘No Due Certificate’. There was, therefore, no deficiency, in service, on the part of the Opposite Party, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The District Forum was also right, in holding so. The findings of the District Forum, in this regard, being correct, are affirmed. 11.. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties. 12. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being based, on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission. 13. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld. 14. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge. 15. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | , | |
