Court Judgments

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SOLAN, H.P.

Consumer Complaint No: 108/2006

Date of presentation: 18.08.2006

Date of decision: 24/12/2009

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

Ms. Mehul Enterprises, The Mall Solan, Tehsil and District Solan H.P. Through its Proprietor Sh. Bansi Dhar S/o late Sh. Johri lal, R/o Mukh Bhawan, Rajgarh Road Solan, Tehsil and District Solan.

… Complainant

Versus

1.         GMAC-TCFC Private Limited, SCO 52-53, Sector 9-D Madhya Marg, Chandigarh U.T. Through its Managing Director/ Director / General Manager.

2.         State of Himachal Pradesh,

Through Secretary Transport at Shimla.

3.         Registering & Licensing Authority Solan H.P.

…Opposite Parties

For the complainant:                   Mr. Mohit Sharma, Advocate.

For the Opposite Parties:           Exparte

O R D E R:

Sureshwar Thakur (District Judge) President:-  The  instant complaint has been filed by the complainant,   by invoking the provisions of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The complainant avers, that, he is owner of car bearing registration No.HP-14-9394, which was purchased by him, from the OP, hence, got the same registered with the OP No.2, at, Solan. It is averred that he had defrayed the entire loan amount to the OP No.1, yet, the OP No.1, had failed to issue no objection certificate qua the clearance of financed amount. Thereafter, the   registered notice was also issued to the Op No.1, which has been received back undelivered with the endorsement that the addressee has left the place. The complainant further proceeded to aver that since the OP No.1 had failed to issue him the no objection certificate qua the clearance of loan amount.  Hence, it is averred that there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and accordingly relief to the extent as detailed in the relief clause be awarded in favour of the complainant.

2.                The OPs No.1 & 2, in its written version, to the complaint, admitted the registration of vehicle bearing No.HP-14-9394 with them and further contended that as per form No.21, furnished by the complainant the vehicle has been shown under hire purchase agreement with the OP No.1.  Hence, it is denied, that, there was any deficiency in service on their part or that they have indulged in an unfair trade practice. However, none appeared on behalf of the OP No.1 despite service through publication in Amar Ujala, hence, was ordered to be proceeded against exparte, on, 27.06.2009.

3.                Thereafter, the parties adduced evidence, by way of affidavits, and, documents in support of their respective,   contentions.

4.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also thoroughly scanned the entire record of the case.

5.                The complainant, is, aggrieved by the act of the OP No.1, in not issuing to him, the no objection certificate qua the clearance of loan so obtained by him from it.  The complainant in support of his claim, as asserted in the complaint, has, placed on record the copy of the statement Annexure C-1, detailing the defrayment of loan instalments before the OP No.1. Annexure C-2, is, the coy of application moved by him to the OP No.1, for issuance of no dues certificate. In addition to this, the complainant has, also, filed his own affidavit corroborating the facts as detailed in the complaint. Since, the allegations, as made in the complaint by the complainant, hence, have remained un-repulsed and un-benumbed, on record by non-adduction of rebuttal evidence on behalf of the OP No.1, as such, the only inference which sprouts, from, the above, is, that the allegations as asserted in the complaint, are, true and   correct. Hence, it is held that the act of the OP No.1, in not issuing,  the,  no objection certificate to him, constitute a  deficiency in service, but, is, also, an, unfair trade practice on the part of the OP No.1.

6.                Consequently, we allow this complaint and direct the OP No.1, to issue no objection to the complainant qua clearance of loan amount, within a period of forty five days, after the date of receipt of copy of this order. The litigation cost is, quantified at Rs.1,000/- payable by the OP No.1, to the complainant. However, the complaint against OPs No.2 & 3 is dismissed being not maintainable. The learned counsel for the complainant has undertaken to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, whereas, a certified copy of this order shall be sent to the OPs through UPC, for compliance.  The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.

Announced on this, the 24th day of December, 2009.

(Sureshwar Thakur)

President.

NMehta)                     (Virender Thakur)         (Arun Bala Sharma)

Member                                     Member.

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SOLAN, H.P.

Consumer Complaint No: 15/2008

Date of presentation:22.02.2008

Date of decision: 24/12/2009

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

Ms. Bimla Sharma W/o Late Sh. Darshan Kumar,

Resident of Village Tikkari, P.O. Parwanoo,

Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan H.P.

… Complainant

Versus

1.         M/s Libra Finane Limited, B-2, Bhargava Lane, Boulevard Road, Delhi 110054  Through its Managing Director/ Director and general Manager.

2.         M/s Libra Finance Limited,

Branch Office Darlaghat,

Tehsil Arki, District Solan H.P.

Through its Branch Manager cum authorized person    Mr. Raju.

…Opposite Parties.

For the complainant:                   Mr. Ram Rattan, Advocate.

For the Opposite Parties:            Ms.  Suchitra, Advocate, vice

Mr. D.D. Sharma, Advocate.

O R D E R:

Sureshwar Thakur (District Judge) President:-  The  instant complaint has been filed by the complainant,   by invoking the provisions of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The complainant, avers that, she got the truck bearing registration No.HR-68-6244, financed for a sum of Rs.1,10,000/-, which amount was to be defrayed to the OPs, within two years through installments. It is averred that the possession of the truck bearing registration No.HR-68-6244 was handed over to her, on payment of Rs.2,75,000/- out of which Rs.1,10,000/-  was advanced by the OPs, and the remaining sum of Rs.1,65,000/- was paid to Shri Amrik Singh through Mr. Anil and Gurmukh. It is averred that, on, 22.03.2007 the OPs, repossessed the truck from the possession of the son of the complainants, hence, the mater was reported to the Police, upon which FIR bearing registration No.46, dated 22.03.2007, came to be registered with the Police, which was released as per the direction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Panchkulla. Thereafter, again on, 12.02.2008, the OPs repossessed the aforesaid car, and has failed to return its possession to her, and has also failed to issue no objection certificate despite her repeated requests and visits in this behalf.   Hence, it is averred that there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and accordingly relief to the extent as detailed in the relief clause be awarded in favour of the complainant.

2.                The OPs, in its written version, to the complaint, raised preliminary objections vis-à-vis maintainability of the complaint, and on merits, contended that the complainant took on hire purchase one truck Eicher Canter of 1996 Model bearing registration No.HR-68-6244, vide Hire Purchase Agreement, dated 09.11.2006. It is further contended that as per agreement the total hire purchase money agreed was Rs.1,34,200/- payable in 24 monthly hire charges. They further contended that a sum of Rs.82,926.93 is due to them from the complainant, which she is avoiding  to pay. Hence, it is denied, that, there was any deficiency in service on their part or that they have indulged in an unfair trade practice.

3.                Thereafter, the parties adduced evidence, by way of affidavits, and, documents in support of their respective,   contentions.

4.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also thoroughly scanned the entire record of the case.

5.                The complainant, is, aggrieved by the act of the OPs, in unauthorisedly repossessing the truck bearing registration No.HR-68-6244, hence, causing financial loss to her, tantamounts both the deficiency in service, as well, as, an unfair trade practice. The OPs, have repudiated the claim of the complainant, inasmuch, as, the complainant was very irregular in making the payment of monthly hire charges, and a sum of Rs.82,926.93, is, still due from the complainant, as hire charges, hence, is exculpating their liability.

6.                So far as the plea of the OPs, that, a sum of Rs.82,926.93, is, still outstanding against the complainant, we find no material  on record to substantiate the said fact. However, the said averment has remained only in the realm of the reply of the OPs, and has remained unsubstantiated. Assuming that the complainant, was, irregular in making defrayment of the loan installments, even then, their action of repossession of the vehicle, by use of force, without, a, notice to the complainant preceding such repossessing, when such a notice in case served upon the complainant would have validated their act, hence, lack of proof of notice to the complainant or the absence of notice to the complainant by the OP, preceding their act of repossession, is wholly unwarranted.   In taking this view, we are supported by the law as laid down by the Hon’ble HP State Consumer Commission, in First Appeal No.254/2008, decided on 01.10.2009, in case Jitender Singh Gulerai versus ICICI Bank Limited and others.

7.                Since, the truck had been illegally repossessed by use of force, by the OPs, hence, depriving the complainant of its use, for the period for which it remained not in possession of the complainant, while it having come to be repossessed by the OPs, as such, the complaint, in the totality of facts  and in the interest of justice,  is, allowed to the extent that the complainant, is, held entitled to a sum of Rs.30,000/- as damages from the  OPs, for illegal repossession of truck bearing registration No.HR-686244.  The aforesaid adjudged amount has been arrived at, for, lack of apposite evidence, qua loss of financial earnings to the complainant during the period of time, it remained with the OPs. The aforesaid amount shall also comprise indemnification to the complainant, for pain, suffering, as well, as, inconvenience.  The litigation cost, is, quantified at, Rs.2500/- payable by the OPs, to the complainant. Since, the vehicle has already been ordered to be returned to the complainant, vide zimini order dated 22.02.2008, hence, we do not think it proper to again order the return of the vehicle to the complainant. However, the complainant, is, directed to deposit the installments of the hire charges, with the OPs, as per the schedule of payment as is existing in Hire Purchase Agreement Annexure R-1.

8.                The amount aforesaid shall be defrayed to the complainant by the OPs, within a period of forty five days, after the date of receipt of copy of  this order, failing which they shall also be liable to pay punitive damages of Rs.20,000/-. In the above terms, the complaint stands disposed of.

9.                The learned counsel for the parties undertook to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per rules.   The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.

Announced on this, the 24th day of December, 2009.

(Sureshwar Thakur)

President.

NMehta)                     (Virender Thakur)         (Arun Bala Sharma)

Member                                     Member.

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SOLAN, H.P.

Consumer Complaint No: 90/2008

Date of presentation: 29.05.2008

Date of decision: 24/12/2009

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

1.         Dr. Vinod Kumar Chaudhary, S/o sh. Dariyav Singh, R/o Q.No. 28, Type- III, UHF, Nauni Tehsil and District Solan H.P.

2.         Smt. Mamta Chaudhary W/O Dr Vinod Kumar Chaudhary, R/O Q. No.28, 28 Type-III, UHF, Nauni, Tehsil and District Solan, H.P.

… Complainant

Versus

1.        ICICI Bank Home Loans,

ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex,

Mumbai-400051,

Through its authorized signatory.

2.          ICICI Bank (Home Finance),

The Mall Solan, Tehsil and District Solan H.P.

Through its Manager.

3.         Sh. Manoj, DMA ICICI Bank, Mitoo Finance,

Opposite Girl School The Mall Solan H.P.

…Opposite Parties.

For the complainant:                   Mr. Pankaj Kashyap, Advocate.

For the Opposite Parties:          Mr. Raman Gupta, Advocate.

O R D E R:

Sureshwar Thakur (District Judge) President:-  The  instant complaint has been filed by the complainants,   by invoking the provisions of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  It is averred that the complainants applied through OP No.3, for providing them home loan of Rs.4,50,000/-, in the month of March, 2006, as a result of which loan agreement was executed and OPs also obtained 20 cheques of PNB Solan. It is averred that the loan amount was repayable in 216 EMI of Rs.4,145/- each starting from April, 2006, out of the said installments, 20 installments were paid to the OPs through cheques. It is averred that they deposited the entire loan installments with the OPs, but failed to provide to them the statement of accounts. It is further averred that, the OPs, charged a sum of Rs.11,000/- in excess from them, but failed to adjust the said sum.  Hence, it is averred that there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and accordingly relief to the extent as detailed in the relief clause be awarded in favour of the complainant.

2.                The OPs, in their reply has contended that the complainant, is, still liable to pay a sum of Rs.4445/- to them. They further contended that the statement of account and the repayment schedule has been provided to them as and when demanded. It is further contended that the rate of interest was Rs.12.5% and not 24%, as averred by the complainants.   Hence, it is denied, that, there was any deficiency in service on their part or that they have indulged in an unfair trade practice.

3.                Thereafter, the parties adduced evidence, by way of affidavits, and, documents in support of their respective,   contentions.

4.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also thoroughly scanned the entire record of the case.

5.                The complainant, is, aggrieved by the act of the OPs, in charging excess sum of Rs.11,000/-, hence, not refunding the same to him. However, the OPs, have repudiated the claim of the complainants, by, contending that a sum of Rs.4,445/- is, still recoverable from the complainant, hence, is exculpating their liability.

6.                The parties do not wrangle over the fact of advancement of loan to the complainants, to, the extent of Rs.4,50,000/-. However, the, dispute interse the parties, is, qua charging of excess sum of Rs.11,000/- from the complainants by the OPs, and qua without, the OPs, are entitled to receive a sum of Rs.4445/-, from the complainant, on account of repayment of loan installments. A perusal of the defrayments made by the complainant, to, the, OP reveals, the, fact, that, defrayments comprising the loan installments were made to the OP, by, the complainant. However the said defrayments were made on the 24th of each month, whereas, the counsel for the OP contends, that, they being belated defrayments, hence, necessitated levy of interest, inasmuch, as, the rules, as well as the terms of the loan ordained   defrayment, of, loan installments to be made on the 10th of each month. However, with the said plea having remained unsubstantiated, for, want of adduction  of rules  or conditions of loan mandating, the, time of defrayments and, that, for want of timely defrayments, the, levy of interest was not unwarranted, therefore, the plea having remained  unsubstantiated, and with defrayments of loan installments having been made to the OP, consequently, the act of the OP interest for the purported belated defrayment of outstanding loan installments payable to the OP by the complainant, comprises, deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Since, the act of the OP levying interest for delayed defrayment to, it, of the loan installments by the complainant, for, reasons aforesaid, is, untenable, therefore, is unwarranted thereby, constituting  a deficiency in service on their part.

7.       Consequently, we, allow this complaint and direct, both, the OPs jointly and severally, to, pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation, to, the complainant litigation cost quantified at Rs. 1000/-payable by the OP to the complainant.   It is clarified, that, the excess amount charged by the OP, while comprising levy of interest by it, for, delayed defrayment to it of the loan obligation cast upon the complainant, shall, be waived. Nonetheless, if, any outstanding loan installment, is, recoverable from the complainant while not comprising levy of interest for purported delayed defrayment to it by the complainant of the loan installments, then, it is open, for, the OP, to, recover such other sum from the complainant in accordance with Law. The learned counsel for the complainant has undertaken to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, whereas the certified copy of this order shall be sent to the OP by the office through UPC. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.

Announced on this, the 24th day of December, 2009.

(Sureshwar Thakur)

President.

NMehta)                                  (Virender Thakur)      (Arun Bala Sharma)

Member                                      Member.