DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII(SW)

[GOVT. OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI]

FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SHAKAR BHAWAN

CASE NO. CC/605/2013

                                                                      Date of Institution  : 22.11.2011

                                              Order reserved on : 27.04.2023

                                              Date of Order : 08.05.2023

In the matter of:

Veer Bahadur,

S/o Tri Bhun Singh,

R/o 33/25, M.S. Block,

Rajaji Enclave, Part-III

New Delhi.                                                  ….                Complainant

VERSUS

1. Welkin Commercial Pvt. Ltd.,

       A-51, Azad Hind Gauj Marg,

      Sewak Park,

   Near Dwarka More Metro Station,

    New Delhi – 1100059.

Also at :

2. Shri Ram Transport Finance Co. Ltd.,

  101-1-5, First floor,

   B Wing, shiv Chambers, Sector 11,

   CBD, Balapur,

    Navi Mumbai- 110014.….Opposite Parties

ORDER

(By SH. SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, PRESIDENT)

1. The complainant has filed the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (hereinafter referred to as Act) with the allegations that on 13.06.2010 he has approached OP-1 with Order Booking Form A for the purchase of Tata Ace CNG Vehicle with the finance facility of 2,85,000/-.  He has paid Rs 10,000/- on the same day and a sum of Rs. 96,000/- was paid on 22.06.2010 and receipts were issued by OP-1.  He has in fact paid Rs. 1,08,000/- but receipts of Rs. 1,06,000/- were issued by OP-1 and thereby cheated him.  The OP-1 told him that he will have to pay 36 installments of Rs. 9919/- and thereafter he can approach OP-2 for the NOC.  His signatures were taken on some blank printed forms of loan agreement.  OP-1 told him that these are mandatory things and these papers will be handed-over to him after the completion of transactions.  He has paid the entire amount to OP-2 and contacted OP-2 after 36 months for the issuance of NOC but it was brought to his notice he has yet to pay 06 more installments.  The Opposite parties have cheated him with mala fide intention and deliberating avoiding the issuance of NOC. Hence, this complaint.

2. OP-2 has filed the reply to the effect that this Commission does not have territorial jurisdiction to decide this complaint.  The complaint is not maintainable as material facts have been concealed by the complainant and concocted the story. The OP-2 has extended finance facility of Rs 2,85,000/- to the complainant.  A sum of Rs. 1,06,000/- was paid by the complainant to OP-2. The complainant has visited the office for loan upon which, a loan of Rs. 2,85,-000/- against Tata Ace Vehicle was sanctioned and loan-cum-hypothecation agreement dated 24.06.2010 along with other documents was executed by the complainant.  The loan amount was repayable in 41 monthly installments out of which first installment was Rs. 11,679/- and other installments of Rs. 9919/- per month. The complainant has paid 36 installments till 11.09.2013.  The complainant is yet to pay a sum of Rs. 131413 to OP-2. The allegations of the complainant are false.

3. OP-1 did not put the appearance and accordingly proceeded Ex-parte on 10.11.2014.

4. Both the parties have led the evidence.  The complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence and reiterated the facts already set out in the beginning while briefing.
5. OP-2 has filed the affidavit of Sh. Rahul Sharma in evidence and reiterated the facts of the reply.

6. We have heard Ld counsel for the parties and pursued the entire material on record.

7. It is clear entire material on record that complainant had approached OP-2 for the sanction of loan for the purchase of Tata Ace CNG Vehicle.  The complainant has paid a sum of Rs 10,000/- and 96,000/- on 13.06.2010 and 22.06.2010 and receipts to this effect were issued.  There is nothing to substantiate the version of the complainant that he has paid a sum of Rs. 1,08,000/- and receipts of Rs. 1,06,000/-  were issued/.  The complainant did not raise his voice or objection at any point of time for the reasons best known to him in case receipts were not in accordance with the amount paid by him.

8. The OP-2 has sanctioned a loan of Rs. 2,85,000/- to the complainant.  The complainant has executed loan-cum-hypothecation agreement dated 24.06.2010 (shown as Ex OPW1/2 in the affidavit of OP-2).

9. The complainant has also executed the description of hypothecated asset as well as equated monthly installment schedule along with loan-cum-hypothecation agreement. The signatures of the complainant appear on all these documents as such he is bound by the documents executed by him.

10. His plea that he had to pay 36 installments does not find support from the record as equated monthly installment schedule shows that he has to pay 41 monthly installments. The complainant has placed on record copy of the bank statement.  The amount shown in the statement of bank account of the complainant is duly reflected in Annexure A dt 12.02.2016 filed by the OP-2. There is nothing on the record that any payment made by the complainant is not reflected in the Annexure A filed by the OP-2.  The installments paid by the complainant are duly reflected in the statement.  The complainant has failed to point out any discrepancy in the statement i.e. Annexure A filed by the OP-2 with the statement filed by him. The record shows that the complainant has not paid the full equated monthly installments as reflected in the equated monthly installment schedule annexed with the loan-cum-hypothecation agreement dt 24.06.2010.  The oral version that he had to pay 36 installments cannot be relied upon in the presence of documentary evidence.

11. The complainant did not pay the entire amount after availing the loan facility from the OP-2. The complainant has filed to point out that there is deficiency of service on the part of OP-2 or there is any unfair trade practice adopted by OP-2.  Mere allegations in the form of affidavit are not enough unless supported by the documentary evidence.

12. We are of the view that complainant has filed to point out any deficiency in service on the part of OP-2 as alleged in the complaint.

13. The complaint is without any merits and is accordingly dismissed, without any order as to the cost.

• Copy of this Order be supplied to parties free of cost.

• File is consigned to record room thereafter.

• Announced in the open court.