BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SHIMLA, H.P.
Consumer Complaint No: 142/2006
Date of presentation: 10.05.2006
Date of decision: 22.07.2009
Capt (Hon) Shyam singh Jaswal S/O late Shri Khiali Ram,
Resident of Jaswal Bhawan, New Market Totu, Shimla, H.P.
… Complainant.
Versus
1. Syal Finance Ltd., Channel business partner,
Syal Chambers 195, Adrash Nagar, Jalandhar
Through its Managing Director.
2. The Managing Director, Syal Finance Ltd.
Chanel business partner, Syal Chambers 195, Adarsh Nagar, Jalandhar (Punjab).
3. The Senior Manager, Syal Finance Ltd.,
Partner HDFC Bank, Kachhi Ghati, Shimla, H.P.
…Opposite Parties
For the complainant: Mr. B.S. Ranjan, Advocate vice
Mr. S.D. Sharma, Advocate.
For the Opposite Parties: Mr. Vijay Verma, Advocate vice
Mr. R.G. Thakur, Advocate.
O R D E R:
Per, Karuna Machhan, Member:- 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 got the bus financed from the OPs in September, 2005 and took advance payment of one instalment to the tune of Rs.20,338/- and on 10.04.2006, the officials of the OP No.3, threatened to take the possession of the bus and when, the complainant visited the OP No.3, on, 11.04.2006, a sum of Rs.41,500/- was taken from him, besides a sum of Rs.12,000/-, for release of the bus, and no receipt was issued 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 filed written version to the complaint and raised preliminary objections vis-à-vis maintainability of the complaint, locus standie to file the complaint, etc. On merits, it is contended that the complainant purchased only the chassis of the bus to the tune of Rs.5,81,000/- and a sum of Rs.2,09,000/- is lying outstanding against the complainant, which he has failed to return to the OPs. The vehicle was seized for non-supplying of documents and for defaulting of instalments. Hence, there being no deficiency in service, the complaint is sought to be dismissed.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have also thoroughly scanned the entire record of the case meticulously.
4. The only controversy, which requires determination from this Forum, is, as to whether the complaint filed by the complainant against the OPs is legally maintainable and that the OPs were legally justified in seizing the vehicle in complainant making default in repayment of instalments.
5. In so far as the assertion of the complainant as asserted in paragraph 4 of the complaint with regard to seizing of the vehicle is concerned, the OPs in its reply contended that the bus was seized in failure of the complainant to make payment of the outstanding loan amount. The complainant no where asserted either in the complaint or in evidence by way of affidavit that he was regularly paying the instalment to the OPs and that nothing is outstanding against the OPs. For lack of such specific proof on record on behalf of the complainant, we are not in a position to come to a definite conclusion that the OPs were guilty of rendering deficient service or that they have indulged in an unfair trade practice, by seizing the vehicle.
6. Moreover, from the pleadings of the parties, it divulges that it is a case of settlement of account and without adducing cogent and convincing evidence, it cannot be concluded that there is no amount outstanding against the complainant or that the OPs have not properly maintained the account of the complainant. The complainant in his complaint, no where pleaded that he has made the entire payment of loan instalments to the OPs or that nothing is outstanding against him, hence, we do not find any substance in the complaint, and as such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
7. In the light of the above, the complaint is dismissed being without any merit. However, the parties are left to bear their own cost. 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 22nd day of July, 2009.
(Sureshwar Thakur)
President.
NMehta) (Karuna Machhan) (Charanjit Singh)
Member Member.