BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Pratibha Kant d/o Sh.Ram Asra, r/o H.No.516/3, Kurari Mohalla, Kalka, District Panchkula.

…..Complainant

                 V E R S U S

The Manager, M/s Tata Motors Finance Ltd., Chandigarh, SCO No.1124-1125, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh.

Second Address :-

         SCO No.139-140, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh.

                      ……Opposite Party

CORAM:     SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL            

PRESIDING MEMBER

                   DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA        

MEMBER

Argued by:    Sh.R.S.Chauhan, Counsel for complainant.

Sh.Vikas Kumar, Proxy Counsel for Sh.Y.P.Singh, Counsel for OP.

PER DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER

         Briefly stated, the complainant availed a loan of Rs.2,20,000/- on 28.7.2007 from OP for the purchase of Indica Car bearing registration No.HR-49-FT-0362. As per 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 is averred that the complainant after paying all loan installments till July, 2011, requested the OP to issue No Due Certificate, but the OP instead demanded extra money, which is totally unjustified. Ultimately, a legal notice dated 24.8.2011 (Ann.A) was sent to the OP through post (Ann.B), but to no avail. Hence, this complaint.

2]      The OP filed the reply and admitted the disbursement of loan as well as execution of loan agreement (Ann.R-1).  It is stated that the complainant is a regular defaulter in making timely payments of loan installments. It is also stated that as per statement of accounts (Ann.R-2 to R-4), an amount of Rs.26,047.68 is still due against the complainant, which she did not clear, therefore, is not entitled to get No Objection Certificate. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service on its part and prayer for dismissal of the complaint with costs has been made.  

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4]       We have heard the learned Counsel for the complainant, Proxy counsel for OP and have also perused the record. 

5]       The dispute between the parties, in this complaint, is that even after receiving the whole loan amount, the OP still demanded extra money and did not issue No Due Certificate in favour of the complainant.  Such an act of the OP, is totally unjustified, unlawful, which tantamounts to deficiency in service on its part as a service provider. 

6]       On the other hand, the OP, in its written statement, has stated that the recovery of the dues under the loan agreement, entered into between the parties, is not a deficiency on its part.  It is further stated that the complainant remained defaulter in making timely payment of the loan installments and did not bother to clear the outstanding amount; therefore, she is not entitled to get the No Due Certificate, as per settled law. 

7]       After carefully going through the facts & circumstances of the present complaint as well as perusing the documents placed on file by both the parties; in order to clinch the matter in dispute, it has been made out that admittedly the loan amount of Rs.2,92,800/- availed of from the OP was to be repaid by the complainant in 48 equal monthly installments. The complainant alleged that inspite of her paying all loan installments, yet the OP had not issued the No Due Certificate. Rather, extra amount has been demanded.  Whereas, the OP contended that the complainant, being the defaulter in making regular payments in time, is liable to pay interest, bankers charges on account of bouncing of cheques and other charges, as agreed in the loan agreement.   

8]       Annexure R-1 is the agreement entered into between the parties.  Clause NO.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;

9]       From the above said clause, it is proved that the complainant being the borrower, was liable to pay interest, delayed payment charges, costs etc.

10]       When the parties had entered into a loan agreement and signatory to that, the terms & conditions thereof are binding on them and no one can backout from the same.  Furthermore, the onus was on the complainant to prove, by way of placing on record her account/loan statement or any other documentary proof, that she had paid all the loan installments well in time and therefore, not liable to pay any such charges. A mere verbatism or bald assertion of the complainant in this regard is not sufficient & sustainable, in the absence of any such substantial/cogent evidence.

11]      Whereas, the OP by placing on record the statement of accounts (Ann.R-2 to R-4) had proved that a sum of Rs.26,047.68 is still outstanding against the complainant. Therefore, the allegation of the complainant that she is not liable to pay any further amount holds no water.

12]      Judged from every angle, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that there is no room to find out any deficiency, negligence or illegality on the part of the OP. Thus, we opine that the Complainant has not been able to prove any deficiency against the OP. Therefore, the complaint having no merit deserves dismissal. The same is accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.

         Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.