Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/345/2021

Angrej Singh S/o Lakhmi Chand - Complainant(s)

Versus

TVS Credit Services ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Rakesh Arora

20 Jul 2022

ORDER

BEFOR THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA

 

                                                                    Complaint No.:    345 of 2021.

                                                                   Date of institution:         15.11.2021.

                                                                   Date of decision: 20.07.2022

 

Angrej Singh s/o Shri Lakhmi Chand, aged about 52 years, r/o village Dhanoura Jattan, Tehsil Ladwa, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                                                …Complainant.

                                                    Versus

 

1. TVS Credit Services Limited, Jayalakshmi Estates No.29, Haddows Road, Nungabakkam, Chennai-600006, through its Managing Director/Chairman.
2. TVS Credit Services Limited, SCO 408, First Floor, Mugal Canal, Old Char Chaman, Karnal through its Manager.

                                                                                      ...Respondents.

 

 

CORAM:   NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.    

                   NEELAM, MEMBER.

 

Present:       Shri Rakesh Arora, Adv. for the complainant.

                   Shri Shekhar Kapoor, Advocate for the Opposite Parties.

 

ORDER:

 

1.                This is a complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

2.                It is alleged in the complaint that complainant had purchased Eicher Tractor-557 Model 2019 bearing Engine No.528626436577 from M/s Daya Motors, Karnal for his livelihood and same was financed by OPs and same was repayable in 48 installments of Rs.44225/- quarterly vide Loan Agreement No.HR3047TR0000075 dated 12.10.2019. He was regularly paying the installments of said loan. On 12.10.2021 he parked his tractor on the workshop of M/s Malik Tractor Workshop, Babain, District Kurukshetra for its service. On 13.10.2021 at about 09:15 AM, he received a telephonic call from the said workshop that some persons of OPs came in a car and took his tractor forcibly. The OPs did not issue any notice regarding default of payment and seizing the tractor, which is mandatory in nature. He went to the office of OPs and asked to give statements of account of the loan. He visited the office of OPs various times and requested to admit the genuine claim of him, but all in vain. The above act and conduct of OPs amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practise, due to which, he suffered huge mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss as well, constraining him to file the present complaint against the OPs.

3.                Upon notice of complaint, OPs appeared and filed their written statement stating therein that the complainant approached the OPs to avail finance facility to purchase of vehicle in question. The OPs agreed and accordingly, an agreement for loan was entered into between the parties on 10.12.2019. The said agreement contains arbitration clause. The complainant while continuing to use the vehicle started defaulting in the payment of monthly installments and failed to respond. The complainant is chronic financial defaulter and had not paid the installments in time as per terms and conditions of the agreement. That a civil suit No.CS/186/2020 titled as Angrej Vs. Daya Motors is pending before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kurukshetra and is fixed for 25.01.2022. In this case, complainant prayed that a decree of rendition of accounts be passed and OP may also be directed not to take the illegal possession of said tractor till disposal of the suit. In response to this suit, OPs moved an application for dismissal of suit, but complainant has not filed reply to that application. The jurisdiction of this Commission completely barred when the same issue is also pending adjudication before the Civil Courts. Hence, the complaint requires to be dismissed on this very ground. The OPs has issued notices, reminders and verbal genuine demands to deposit outstanding amount and delivered loan recall notice on 11.01.2021, but complainant did not come forward to deposit the same and showed his inability to pay the same and got surrendered his vehicle in question. The OP in order to appropriate the outstanding loan amount issued pre sale notice dated 02.11.2021 thereby asking to deposit Rs.751753/- and after receiving the same, complainant mischievously approached this Commission and cooked up a false story. There is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal the present complaint against them.

4.                In support to support his case, complainant tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3 and closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, OPs tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A along with documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-10 and closed the evidence.

6.                We have heard the learned counsel of the complainant and gone through the case file as well as written arguments submitted by the OPs.

7.                Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant had purchased Eicher Tractor-557 Model 2019 for his livelihood and same was financed by OPs and same was repayable in 48 installments of Rs.44225/- quarterly. The complainant was regularly paying the installments of said loan. On 12.10.2021 the complainant parked his tractor on the workshop of M/s Malik Tractor Workshop, Babain, District Kurukshetra for its service. On 13.10.2021 at about 09:15 AM, the complainant received a telephonic call from the said workshop that some persons of OPs came in a car and took his tractor forcibly. The OPs did not issue any notice regarding default of payment and seizing the tractor, which is mandatory in nature. He went to the office of OPs and asked to give statements of account and requested to admit the genuine claim of him, but all in vain. To support his contentions, he placed reliance upon case laws titled M/s Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nikil Patra & Anr., 2021 (3) CPR 297 (NC); IndusInd Bank Vs. Amrik Singh, 2020 (3) CPR 446 (NC); Upender Kumar Singh Vs. Shree Ram Equipment Finance Co. Ltd., 2019 (2) CPR 523 (NC).  

8.                The learned counsel for the OPs has argued that the complainant approached the OPs to avail finance facility to purchase of vehicle in question. The OPs agreed and accordingly, an agreement for loan was entered into between the parties on 10.12.2019. The said agreement contains arbitration clause. The complainant while continuing to use the vehicle started defaulting in the payment of monthly installments and failed to respond. The complainant is chronic financial defaulter and had not paid the installments in time as per terms and conditions of the agreement. That a civil suit No.CS/186/2020 titled as Angrej Vs. Daya Motors is pending before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kurukshetra and is fixed for 25.01.2022. In this case, complainant prayed that a decree of rendition of accounts be passed and OP may also be directed not to take the illegal possession of said tractor till disposal of the suit. In response to this suit, OPs moved an application for dismissal of suit, but complainant has not filed reply to that application. The jurisdiction of this Commission completely barred when the same issue is also pending adjudication before the Civil Courts. Hence, the complaint requires to be dismissed on this very ground. The OPs has issued notices, reminders and verbal genuine demands to deposit outstanding amount and delivered loan recall notice on 11.01.2021, but complainant did not come forward to deposit the same and showed his inability to pay the same and got surrendered his vehicle in question. The OP in order to appropriate the outstanding loan amount issued pre sale notice dated 02.11.2021 thereby asking to deposit Rs.751753/- and after receiving the same, complainant mischievously approached this Commission and cooked up a false story. There is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal the present complaint against them.

9.                There is no dispute between the parties that the complainant took the had purchased Eicher Tractor-557 from M/s Daya Motors, Karnal and financed the same from OPs for a sum of Rs.5,05,949/-, which was repayable in 48 installments of Rs.44225/- quarterly vide Loan Agreement dated 12.10.2019 and the commencement of first installment was 05.02.2020.

10.              The grievance of the complainant that he was regularly paying the installments of said loan, but on 13.10.2021, the OPs forcibly snatched his tractor from the workshop of M/s Malik Tractor Workshop, Babain, District Kurukshetra, whereas, on the other hand, the OPs contended that the complainant paid only two installments and after that, he did not pay any installment despite receipt of various notices, reminders and verbal genuine demands from the OPs and lastly, they repossessed his tractor as per rules.

11.              From the Statements of Account Ex.R-4, it is evident that the complainant had paid only two installments, out of total 48 installments, i.e. Rs.44500/- on 05.02.2020 and Rs.38100/- on 05.05.2020, total Rs.82,600/- against total financed amount of Rs.5,05,949/-. From 05.05.2020 till today, the complainant had not paid any amount/installment to the OPs against that loan amount. Neither the complainant produced any documentary evidence in this regard. When the complainant did not turned back to the OPs for payment of loan amount, then the OPs sent “Loan Recall Notice” on 11.01.2021 Ex.R-8 through Advocate & Commissioner of Oaths Shri Suresh Raman asking the complainant to pay the outstanding amount of Rs.760580/- within 7 days from the date of receipt of this Recall Notice by the complainant, but despite that, the complainant had not paid any single penny to the OPs against the said outstanding loan amount. From the document Ex.R-5 it is clear that father of complainant namely Lakhmi Chand had made undertaking on 06.10.2021 that on 13.10.2021, he will pay Rs.5 lacs to the OPs and in case of non-payment on that date, he will surrender his tractor to the OPs and after that, the OPs left with no other option except to recover the said loan amount after repossessing the vehicle in question.

Moreover, on 30.10.2021, the OPs had written a letter to The Station House Officer, Ladwa, Kurukshetra intimating them about surrendering the tractor in question by the complainant himself and taking the same into their possession/custody. So, from the above, it is clear that the complainant himself surrendered his tractor in question to the OPs on account of non-payment of loan amount by him. As such, the contention of the complainant that the OPs had forcibly snatched his tractor in question, has no force, hence rejected.

12.              Perusal of case file shows, that along with the present complaint, the complainant filed an application for stay the resale proceedings of the OPs and as such, vide order dated 22.11.2021, this Commission, at the initial stage of this complaint, has restrained the OPs for alienating the tractor in question in any manner till further order from this Commission in this regard, but it is pertinent to mention here that even after restraining the OPs not to resale the tractor in question of the complainant, neither the complainant had not paid any amount/installment to the OPs against his outstanding loan amount, to show his bonafide intention regarding the loan in question, rather he remained adamant and had not ever contacted the OPs in this regard. As such, the complainant has also not come to this Commission with clean hands.

13.              So, keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that after financing his tractor in question from the OPs, the complainant had paid only two installments of Rs.44500/- on 05.02.2020 and Rs.38100/- on 05.05.2020, total Rs.82,600/-, against the total financed/outstanding amount of Rs.5,05,949/- and thereafter, the OPs sent various reminders/notice to the complainant in this regard and lastly, when complainant failed to repay the loan installments, then he himself surrendered his tractor in question with the OPs. Hence, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of OPs by saying that the OPs had snatched his tractor in question. The case laws produced by the complainant are not disputed, but the same are not helpful to the case of the complainant being rested on different footings.

14.              In view of our above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and dismiss the same with no order as to costs. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record-room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission:

Dated:20.07.2022.

    

                                                                                       (Neelam Kashyap)               

                   (Neelam)                                                     President,

                    Member.                                                      DCDRC, Kurukshetra. 

 

 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, Stenographer.