Complaint No: 231 of 2019.

                                                               Date of Institution: 15.07.2019.

                                                                       Date of order: 02.11.2023.

Harcharan Singh Son of Nihal Singh, resident of Village Fajjupura, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur. 143518.

                                                                                                                                      …...Complainant.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      

                                                      VERSUS

1.       United Finance Company (Regd.), Rania (Dhariwal), Tehsil and District Gurdaspur, through its Authorized Signatory / Proprietor Sh. Satinder Singh Son of Kuldip Singh, resident of Mill Quarter, Line No. 6, Dhariwal, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur. 143518.

2.       Riar Finance Company (Regd.), City Dhariwal, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur, through its Authorized Signatory / Proprietor Sh. Satinder Singh Son of Kuldip Singh, resident of Mill Quarter, Line No. 6, Dhariwal, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur. 143518

                                                                                                                          ….Opposite parties.

                                   Complaint Under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Uttam Raj Sharma, Advocate.

              For the Opposite Parties: Sh.Manoj Loomba, Advocate.  

Quorum: Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President, Sh.Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.

ORDER

Lalit Mohan Dogra, President.

          Harcharan Singh, Complainant (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against United Finance Co. Etc. (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties).

2.       Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the complainant is doing the work of selling fruit in Rairy and earning his livelihood for himself and his family members. It is submitted that the OP’s are doing work of lending money to the needy person on higher rate of interest. It is further pleaded that complainant was in dire need of money for purchase of fruit for selling the same in Rairy for earning his livelihood for himself and for his family members and the complainant borrowed Rs.20,000/- from the OP No.1 on 17.07.2017 and the OP No.1 prepared the case of the complainant for the amount of Rs.20,000/-  bearing A/c No.796. It is further pleaded that the complainant repaid Rs.5,200/- to the OP No.1 till 06.09.2017 @ Rs.100/- Per Day, but the OP No.1 did not deduct the amount already paid by the complainant. It is further pleaded that  rather issued another copy No.2 of 796 and the complainant again repaid Rs.6,100/- to the OP No.1 @ Rs.350/-, Rs.200/- and Rs.100/- Per Day and then again the OP issued another copy No.3 bearing No.899 and complainant repaid Rs.8,290/- @ Rs.150/- Per Day, the OP No.1 again issued another copy No.4 bearing No.103 and according to this copy, the complainant repaid amount of Rs.6,200/- @ Rs.150/-, Rs.100/- Per Day, then again the OP No.1 issued fresh copy No.5 bearing No.220 and according to this, the complainant repaid Rs.14,550/- @ Rs.150/- Per Day, the OP No.1 again issued copy No.6 bearing No.337 and according to this copy, the complainant repaid Rs.11,400/- @ Rs.150/- Per Day and the OP No.1 again issued copy No.7 bearing No.443 to the complainant in the name of OP No.2 and according to this, the complainant paid Rs.6,900/- to the OP No.2 @ Rs.150/- Per Day. It is further pleaded that in this way, the complainant repaid Rs.58,640/- to the OP’s against the payment of Rs.20,000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that copy No.7 has been issued by the OP No.2. It is further alleged that the complainant repaid the amount of Rs.58,640/-, but the OP’s illegally demanding Rs.15,000/- more from the complainant, however complainant has paid much more amount than taken from the OP’s. It is further pleaded that  act of the OP’s to illegally demand amount of Rs.15,000/- from the complainant is illegal, null and void, against the law and the complainant is not liable to make the payment of Rs.15,000/- to the OP’s.  It is further pleaded that  on 28.06.2019, the OP’s came to the fruit Rairy of the complainant and gave filthy abuses and slapped the complainant and threatening to recover the amount of Rs.15,000/- from the complainant illegally, forcibly and through coercive method. It is further pleaded that  even the complainant was called so many times by the opposite parties in his office to pay the amount of Rs.15,000/-,  due to this the complainant is unable to do the work of selling fruit and has caused loss of Rs.20,000/-, which the opposite parties are liable to compensate. It is further pleaded that even the opposite parties have used abusive language against the complainant over the phone and also manhandled with the complainant. It is further pleaded that complainant is poor person and is not able to match the strength with the opposite parties. It is further pleaded that due to this illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties the complainant has suffered great loss and also suffered mental agony, Physical harassment and inconvenience. It is further pleaded that there is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

          On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency and negligence in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and prayed that the opposite parties be restrained from recovering amount of Rs.15,000/- from the complainant and opposite parties be directed to return the excess amount received from the complainant and also issued No Due Certificate to the complainant regarding the loan in question. The opposite parties may be further burdened to pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant towards mental harassment and mental agony suffered to the clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, in the interest of justice.

3.       Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint and filing their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the present suit is not maintainable before  this Hon’ble Commission as the entry in question is business entry and does not come under the ambient of Consumer Protection Act. It is pleaded that the opposite parties never demanded any money from the complainant and there is no deficiency in service by the opposite parties as the same does not come under the Consumer Protection Law.

          On merits, the opposite parties have reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. In the end, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.  

4.       Learned counsel for the complainant has filed an affidavit of Harcharan Singh, (Complainant) alongwith other documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7.

5.       Learned counsel for the opposite parties has only filed written reply to the complaint.

6.       Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.

7.       Written arguments not filed by both the parties.

8.       Counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant who is a hocker borrowed Rs.20,000/- from opposite party No.1 and had repaid the amount. However, opposite parties received repayment vide different copies bearing different numbers and in this way received excess amount and now they are threatening to receive further amount of Rs.15,000/- from the complainant which amounts to deficiency in service.

9.       Counsel for the opposite parties has argued that present complaint is not maintainable being business transactions and has further argued that no such demand of Rs.15,000/- was ever made by the opposite parties.

10.     We have heard the Ld. counsels for the parties and gone through the record.

11.     To prove his case complainant has placed on record his duly sworn affidavit, copies of pass book and entries Ex.C1 to Ex.C7. The said pass books are bearing numbers of entries regarding transactions meaning thereby that there is a dispute between the parties regarding the rendition of accounts and moreover the opposite parties have stated at bar that they have never demanded Rs.15,000/- from the complainant as alleged.

12.     As such we do not find any merit in the present complaint and is accordingly dispose off with the direction to the complainant to approach competent court of law by filing suit for rendition of accounts if permissible under law of limitation.  

13.     The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.

14.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. File be consigned.                                                                                                                                                               

            (Lalit Mohan Dogra)

                                                                                      President.                                                

Announced:                                                   (B.S.Matharu)

Nov. 02, 2023                                                       Member.

*YP*