Punjab

Patiala

CC/15/106

Harwinder Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vikas Associates & Shivam Finance - Opp.Party(s)

Complainant in person

07 Sep 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

 

                                      Complaint No. CC/106/15 of 20.5.2015

                                      Decided on: 7.9.2015

 

Harwinder Kaur w/o Sh.Pritpal Singh aged 57 yrs. R/o H.No.37-A, Gobind Colony, Rajpura, District- Patiala.              

 

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

 

Vikas Associates & Shivam Finance # 12-A,Calibre Market, Rajpura, District Patiala

                                                                   …………….Ops

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

 

                                      QUORUM

                                      Sh.D.R.Arora, President

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

                                      Smt.Sonia Bansal,Member                               

                                                                            

Present:

For the complainant:             In person

For Op (Shivam Finance)     Sh.Gurpreet Singh Kapoor , Advocate  

                                     

                                         ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

1. It is the case of the complainant that she had purchased the vehicle make Honda Activa on 22.3.2013 having got a sum of Rs.23500/- advanced from the Op and having made the down payment of Rs.29500/- from her pocket. The advance got by her was repayable in 24 installments @ Rs.1620/-. She paid all the installments before the due date with interest.
2. After paying off the loan amount, the Op was not ready to transfer the certificate of registration in her favor and even to return the documents including cheques , affidavits, pronotes etc. got signed from the complainant and which were totally blank.
3. It is also the case of the complainant that the Op had not paid the VAT on the vehicle and she was forced to pay Rs.747/- towards the Vat.
4. It is also alleged by the complainant that the Op had assured to charge the bank interest but the Op charged the private rate of interest. On these allegations, the complainant brought this complaint against the Op under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( for short the Act) for a direction to the Op to return his complete file; to get the certificate of registration issued in her favor; to return the vat and to refund the amount of interest charged illegally.
5. On notice, the Op appeared and filed the written version. It is admitted by the Op that the complainant had raised the loan amount from it and she paid the entire amount through installments. The vehicle was purchased by the complainant from M/s Singla Motors Kurukshetra (Haryana).The Op has got no liability to get the certificate of registration transferred in favour of the complainant. All this has to be got done by the complainant from the office of the Transport Officer. No blank document was got executed by the Op from the complainant. The vehicle having been purchased by the complainant from Haryana, the State of Punjab has levied entry tax  of Rs.747/- and the Op has nothing to do with the same.
6. It is also the plea taken up by the Op that the complainant has besides the loan in question raised two more cash loans from the Op, one for Rs.22,000/- on 6.2.2014 in her name and the other for Rs.30,000/-, which was got by the complainant in the name of her son Janinder Pal Singh on 23.5.2014 and she stood as a guarantor in respect of  the same. The loanees were paying the installment to Rs.1540/- and 1850/- in respect of two loans respectively but  the complainant and her son stopped paying their installments and they wanted the loan amounts on the two accounts to be  waived off and  the present complaint has been brought as a pressure tactic , which is an abuse of the process of  law and the amount of Rs.57,020/- is outstanding against the complainant and her son regarding the said two loan accounts. After controverting the other allegations of the complaint, going against the Op, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
7. In support of her complaint, the complainant produced in evidence Ex.CA, her sworn affidavit alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C12 and closed her evidence.
8. On the other hand, on behalf of the Op, it’s counsel tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, the sworn affidavit of Sh.Rakesh Chaudhary,Prop. of the Op alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP3 and closed its evidence.
9. The parties failed to file the written arguments.We have heard the complainant, the learned counsel for the Op and gone through the evidence on record.
10. It is the simple case of the complainant that she raised the loan amount of Rs.23500/-from the Op for purchasing the vehicle make Activa and that she paid off the entire loan amount as per the schedule but the Op failed to  issue the certificate of registration in her favor only, to return her file, to refund the Vat and to refund the amount of the interest charged illegally.
11. During the course of the arguments, the complainant got her statement recorded that by virtue of the prayer made by her in the complaint that op should issue the RC in her name only, she means that she may be issued the ‘No Due Certificate’ so that she may get the endorsement regarding hypothecation of the vehicle made in favor of the Op deleted from the office of the DTO. Sh.Gurpreet Singh Kapoor, the learned counsel for the Op also got his statement recorded that the Op shall issue ‘No Due Certificate’ in favor of the complainant, in respect of the loan account of the vehicle make Activa i.e. the loan in respect of Rs.23500/-.
12. In view of the aforesaid statements got recorded by the complainant and the learned counsel for the Op having suffered the statement that the Op shall issue the ‘No Due Certificate’ in favor of the complainant to enable her to get the entry regarding the hypothecation of the vehicle made in the certificate of registration deleted from the office of the DTO, now we are left with the other part of the relief sought by the complainant with regard to the return of the documents i.e. the cheques and pronotes got signed from the complainant, in this regard, it is the plea taken up by the Op that the documents got executed from the complainant by the Op were a part of the formality but no blank document was got signed from the complainant. The complainant has not lead any evidence as to in respect of which bank the complainant had furnished the blank cheques nor any account number in respect of such account is disclosed by the complainant. The Op itself has produced in evidence Ex.OP1, the copy of pronote dated 6.2.2014 for Rs.22,000/- purportedly executed by the complainant in favor of Sh.Rakesh Chaudhary, Prop. of Shivam Finance and Ex.OP2, copy of the pronote executed by Janinder Pal Singh son of Pritpal Singh ( son of the complainant) in a sum of Rs.30,000/- in favor of Sh.Rakesh Chaudhary, Prop. of Shivam Finance on 23.5.2014, in respect of which it is the plea of the Op that these are the other advances raised by the complainant and her son. No other document is produced by the Op meaning thereby that no blank cheque was furnished by the complainant to the Op. Even the Op has not taken any plea that any blank cheques were got signed from the complainant. Therefore, no direction can be given to the Op to return any blank cheques got signed from the complainant.
13. As regards the plea taken up by the complainant that the Op has not refunded the Vat, it is the plea taken up by the Op that the complainant purchased the vehicle from Kurukshetra (Haryana) and therefore , the complainant had to pay the entry tax of Rs.747/- and the Op is not liable to refund the same to the complainant. Ex.C11 is the entry tax receipt dated 13.3.2015 regarding the payment of Rs.747/- regarding the deposit of entry tax by Smt.Harwinder Kaur regarding the vehicle make Activa. We fail to understand as to how she can get the entry tax deposited by her having purchased the vehicle from Haryana refunded by the Op.
14. As regards the plea taken up by the complainant that she was charged the interest on private rate and not on bank rate, there is no evidence lead by the complainant in this regard.
15. As an up shot of our aforesaid discussion, we accept the complaint partly and give a direction to the Op to issue the ‘No Due Certificate’ to the complainant within 20 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of the order. The failure to do so will result into the payment of Rs.150/-per day by way of penalty by the Op to the complainant till the delivery of the ‘No Due Certificate’. In view of the facts and circumstances i.e. the complainant never asked for the issuance of the ‘No Due Certificate’ by the Op, no order as to costs.

Pronounced

Dated: 7.9.2015

 

                   Sonia Bansal                Neelam Gupta                        D.R.Arora

          Member                        Member                                  President