Sri Y.Janardhana Rao, S/o. Bangaraiah, Hindu,

Aged 42 years, Business, Nagavamsapu Veedhi,

Palakonda Village and Mandal, Srikakulam Dist. … Complainant.

01) Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited,

Represented by its Branch Manager, Branch Office,

Door No.8-12-5, P.V.S. complex,

Lower Tank Bund Road, Vizianagaram.

O R D E R

Complainant purchased motor vehicle in April, 2003 for a sum of Rs.4,07,152/- with the finance assistance given by opposite party No.1. Complainant had agreed to pay Rs.5,43,936/- to opposite party No.1 in 48 monthly installments at the rate of 11,332/- per month. Complainant had paid the amount to opposite party NO.1 as agreed. Complainant had requested opposite party No.1 to return documents of the vehicle and clearance certificate since he paid all the installments, but opposite party No.1 had not done so.

Complainant had issued a notice to opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.1 had issued reply notice giving particulars of amount due. Though the complainant had paid installments within time, opposite party No.1 had shown payments as delayed payments and claimed over due charges. On 23-5-2007, complainant had paid Rs.50,000/- to opposite party No.2 towards full and final settlement of the loan. Even then opposite party No.1 had returned the documents of the vehicle and refused to issue Clearance certificate. Hence complaint is filed for a direction to the opposite parties to return back documents of the vehicle including white and printed blank papers containing signatures of the complainant and No-due Certificate and compensation of Rs.50,000/- and costs of Rs.10,000/-.

2) Opposite party No.1 filed counter stating that it is not true to say that he obtained signatures of the complainant on some white and blank papers. It is further stated that the complainant never paid any installments within time and never paid installments in full. Complainant was a defaulter in paying over due charges. Opposite party No.1 had collected over due charges, interest and insurance and other miscellaneous expenses as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. Complainant had to pay an amount of Rs.2,19,455/- as on 5-4-2007.

Complainant had issued notice dated 14-4-2007 to avoid payment of the said amount. It is not true to say that the complainant had paid Rs.50,000/- towards discharge and final settlement of the loan. Complainant had to pay an amount of Rs.1,69,455/- after deducting Rs.50,000/-. Opposite party NO.2 has no authority to make any settlement pertaining to the branch of opposite party No.1. Complainant had made last payment to opposite party No.2 only to file the present complaint. Complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and the vehicle in question was hypothecated to M/s.UTI Bank, Hyderabad and opposite party No.1 is acting as agent. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1.

3) Opposite party Nos.2 and 3 filed memo adopting the counter filed by opposite party No.1.

4) Both parties filed affidavits. Exs.A1 to A13 are marked on behalf of the complainant. Exs.B1 to B9 are marked on behalf of the opposite parties.

Point for consideration is:

Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

5)Point:

Ex.A11 is copy of notice dated 14-4-2007 issued on behalf of the complainant to opposite party No.1 stating that the complainant paid Rs.4,96,004/-. Complainant had to pay an amount of Rs.47,922/- to opposite party No.1, but opposite party NO.1 was demanding the complainant to pay an amount of Rs.2,19,455/-. Opposite party No.1 had not supplied account copy to the complainant. Therefore opposite party No.1 was requested to supply account copy to the complainant. It is further stated that the complainant was not obliged to pay ODC charges. Ex.A13 is reply notice dated 12-5-2007 from opposite party O.1 to the complainant stating that the complainant had paid Rs.4,89,014/- towards installments till 7-3-2007 and an amount of Rs.2,19,455/- was due from the complainant which includes all expenses, OD Compensation, Incidental charges etc. Complainant was liable to pay OD Compensation and Penalty for the delayed payment and interest. Complainant had never paid installments regularly on the due dates as such the complainant was liable to pay OD compensation and penalty for belated payments.

Present complaint was filed on 14-6-2007. Ex.B9 contains ODC Statement and Interest on insurance statement. In the last column of the statement ODC claimed by opposite party No.1 is shown. From May, 2003 onwards ODC and various amounts are claimed by opposite party No.1 regularly. Total ODC charges come to Rs.1,12,063/-. Opposite party No.1 paid insurance amount of Rs.44,173/- of which the complainant had paid Rs.3,000/- only. The balance amount is Rs.41,173/-. Opposite party No.1 has claimed Rs.94,612/- towards interest on insurance amount as on 01-12-2008. Opposite party No.1 has claimed an amount of Rs.9,389/- towards expenses for seizing the vehicle. Opposite party No.1 has claimed Rs.10,000/- towards legal expenses. Opposite party No.1 has claimed an amount of Rs.15,130/- towards RTA expenses. Opposite party No.1 claimed an amount of Rs.4,922/- towards installments. Counsel for the complainant has argued that the interest on Insurance amount claimed by opposite party NO.1 is more than double the insurance amount paid by opposite party No.1.

Likewise ODC charges claimed by the opposite party is highly excessive. Counsel for the complainant has argued that opposite party NO.1 is not entitled to claim substantial amounts towards expenses for seizure, legal expenses and RTA expenses. Opposite party No.1 filed a letter dated 23-12-2008 addressed by the complainant to opposite party NO.1 stating that the complainant was ready to pay an amount of Rs.1,30,000/- towards full settlement. It appears that the complainant has conceded the right of opposite party No.1 to claim some amount towards ODC charges and some amount towards interest on insurance amounts and that is why he was ready to pay Rs.1,30,000/- to opposite party NO.1 towards full and final settlement. The claim of opposite party No.1 for an amount of Rs.94,612/- towards interest on insurance amount is not at all justified. It also appears that the claim of opposite party No.1 for an amount of Rs.1,12,063/- towards OD Compensation is not at all justified. Opposite party N.1 has claimed those amounts out of proportion to the amounts actually due by the complainant. The claim of opposite party No.1 for Rs.9,389/- towards seizure charges is not justified. The claim of opposite party No.1 for Rs.10,000/- towards legal expenses is also not justified. The claim of opposite party NO.1 for Rs.15,130/- towards RTA expenses is also not justified. We therefore hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1. It appears that opposite party No.1 had seized the vehicle after vacating Interim order. Hence, we answer the point accordingly.

In the result, complaint is partly allowed. Complainant has to pay an amount of Rs.1,30,000/- (Rupees one lakh and thirty thousand only) to opposite party No.1 towards full and final settlement of the loan amount and on receipt of the same opposite party No.1 shall release the vehicle with all documents of the vehicle including No-due Certificate to the complainant. No costs. Advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.

Vijeshwar Singh Dengta S/O Shri Devi Singh Dengta,

Village Charka, P.O. Throl, Tehsil Kotkhai, District Shimla, H.P.
… Complainant.
Versus

1. Shri Ram Transport Finance Company Ltd.

Registered Office 123, Angappa Naicken Street

Chenni-600001, through its Managing Director.

2. Shri Ram Transport Finance Company Ltd.

S.C.O. 477-478 Sector 35-C Chandigarh-160036

Through its Manager.
3. Shri Ram Transport Finance Co-operative Ltd.

Kanta Niwas, Near Apple rose Hotel, Kachhi Ghatti, Shimla-10, through its Branch Manager.
…Opposite Parties
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 Bus bearing registration No.HP-62-0407, which was financed by him from the OPs and paid margin money of Rs.1,45,000/- at the time of finance and remaining amount of Rs.5,20,614/- was financed by the OPs for a period of four years in monthly instalments of Rs.17,400/- along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum. It is averred that he had paid a sum of Rs.7,07,914/- to the OPs and excess amount of Rs.54,147/- has been received from him by the OPs, but they did not issue no objection certificate instead asked him for more amount.

The complainant further proceeded to aver that he visited the office of the OPs for settlement and after negotiations with the OPs, they assured him to refinance the bus and sanction the loan amount of Rs.3,60,000/-, out of which only Rs.76,512/- was paid to him through cheque dated 11.07.2007 and the balance amount, is alleged to have been shown adjusted in the earlier loan amount sanction. Thereafter, the OPs, it is alleged, were requested several times to release the amount of sanctioned loan, but they failed to do so. 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 reply to the complaint and raised various preliminary objections vis-à-vis jurisdiction of the Forum to entertain and try the present complaint, status of the complainant as a consumer, involvement of intricate question of law and facts, estoppel etc. On merits, it is contended that a sum of Rs.5,63,000/- was sanctioned as a loan/financed amount along with interest at the rate of 11.56% and the total agreement value of the H.P.A. was assessed as Rs.8,17,800/-. The complainant was to make the payment of the loan amount in 47 EMI.

It is denied that the complainant had paid Rs.54,147/- in excess, whereas, a sum of Rs.3,06,627/- is outstanding against the complainant. However, it is contended that after negotiation, the vehicle was refinanced and a sum of Rs.2,70,000/- was settled as full and final payment for the satisfaction of the defaulted amount of Rs.3,06,627/-, and the balance amount of Rs.76,512/- after adjustment of the earlier loan amount was paid to the complainant. It is denied that there was any deficiency in service on their part or that they have received the excess amount from the complainant.

3. Thereafter the parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents in support of their rival contentions.

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

5. The controversy over which the parties at contest are engaged, is, as to the quantum or the amount of money previously advanced by the OP to the complainant and whose non-defrayment by the complainant to the OPs has resulted in the OPs refusing to release the further instalments of a subsequent loan sanctioned in favour of the complainant by the OPs.

The act of the OPs in refusing to release the further loan instalments to the complainant under a sanction obtained subsequent, to, his previous loan from the OPs which has remained un-defrayed to it, though, is sought to be assailed by the learned counsel for the complainant merely, on, the ground that sanction of the second loan estops, the, OPs from putting forth the contention that for non-defrayment of the loan instalments of a previous loan, the release, to, him the further loan installments of the second loan are liable to be stopped, yet, even if by way of inadvertence the second loan was sanctioned in favour of the complainant, such inadvertence, in, derogation to the rules prohibiting such second sanction in favour of the complainant, whereas, an earlier loan which remained un-defrayed to it, cannot operate, as, an estoppel against the OP’s to do so now, especially, when the aforesaid act is not assailed to be not in accordance with the rules. Nor, hence, can the complainant assert that, he, on the strength of the second sanction, has, a legitimate expectation, that, the further loan instalments are not required to be stopped.

6. Now the issue which engages us, is, the quantum of sum of the earlier un-disbursed loan amount as obtained by the complainant from the OPs. In adjudicating the such issue advertence ought to be made to the admission, in, the pleadings of the OPs duly supported by an affidavit, wherein, they have detailed, the fact, that the previous loan instalments remaining not defrayed to him by the complainant, is, a sum of Rs.73,121/-. Any contradiction qua the said amount, as, is, appearing in Annexure C-7 whose contents are not supported by an affidavit, cannot, hence, be construable to have a countervailing effect upon the admission in the pleadings supported by an affidavit of the OPs.

Hence, Rs.73,121/- shall be paid by the complainant within a period of four weeks and on such payment being made, the further loan installments of the second loan shall be disbursed by the OPs to the complainant within a period of two weeks after the date of deposit of the aforesaid sum. With these observations, the complaint stands disposed of accordingly.

Gian Singh age 50 years son of Hari Singh r/o House No.16, near DAV College, Hoshiarpur.


Complainant


vs.


1.

Siriram Transport Finance Co. ltd registered office 123 Angappa Naloken Street Madras 600001 through its M.D./Chairman.
2.

Jagjit Singh Chhina agent Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. near Bus Stand Batala.


Opposite parties



1.

The complainant namely Gian Singh has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (as amended upto date) “hereinafter referred as the Act.”. In short,the facts of the case are that on the request of OP No.2 , the complainant got financed Swaraj Majda for Rs.3,75,000/-. That OP NO.2 received Rs.15000/- as process charges. . The complainant paid the installments upto August,2008.
2.

It is the allegation of the complainant that in the first week of September,2008, the officials of the OPs came to his residence and demanded Rs.one lac towards pending installments. The complainant made a request that he had already made the payment and nothing is due towards him. It is further the allegation of the complainant that on 23,9.2008, the officials of the OPs came to his residence and took forcible possession of the vehicle. The complainant made a request to OP No.1 to return his vehicle but of no consequences.
3.

It is further the case of the complainant that OP No.1 took the possession of the vehicle without any prior notice, hence this complaint.
4.

OP No.1 filed the reply. Preliminary objections vis a vis maintainability, jurisdiction, cause of action, the complainant is not the consumer and suppression of material facts were raised. On merits, the claim put forth by the complainant has been denied. It is admitted that the complainant got financed the vehicle Swaraj Majda for Rs.3,75,000/-. The complainant was under legal obligation to pay the loan amount in 35 installments. Sh Raj Kumar son of Piara Lal stood guarantor. It is further replied that the vehicle was earlier hypothecated with M/s Sundram Finance Ltd. The complainant made default in the payment of Rs. 3,75,000/- to M/s. Sundram Finance Limited, as such they repossessed the vehicle. That on the request of the complainant, the replying OP paid the amount of Rs.3,75,000/- to M/s Sundram Finance Ltd. vide cheque no. 311853 dated 15.1.2007. The complainant agreed to abide by the terms and conditions of the loan agreement.
5.

It is further replied that the complainant failed to get the vehicle insured, as such, violated the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. The replying OP served a legal notice upon the complainant and his guarantor. That the guarantor in order to avoid his liability, handed over the vehicle to the answering OP. That after getting back the possession of the vehicle, the replying OP served a legal notice to the complainant to clear the dues and to take back the vehicle but of no consequences. The installment amount paid by the complainant had been duly credited in his account. There is contractual relationship between the complainant and the replying OP, as loan agreement was executed between them.
6.

It is denied that in December,2006, OP No.2 came to the complainant and made a request for financing the vehicle. It is replied that the complainant himself approached OP No.1 at Pathankot and made a request to grant loan of Rs.3,75,000/- in order to clear his liability with Sundram Finance Ltd. It is denied that replying OP received Rs.15,000/- as process charges. It is admitted that an amount of Rs.14,400/- was taken as advance installment against proper receipt. It is denied that the complainant paid the installments upto August,2008. It is also denied that OP No.1 is the principal and OP No.2 is the agent. It is also denied that the officials of the replying OP took forcible possession of the vehicle. The complainant was irregular in paying the installment amount and Rs. 1,78,806/-was outstanding against him . The complainant also made a request to the replying OP to reschedule his loan with fresh guarantee.
7.

OP No.2 was proceeded against exparte on 31.12.2008.
8.

In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1,C-2, affidavit of Raj Kumar Ex.C-3, payment receipts dated- 15.1.2007 Mark-A, 9.2.2007 Mark-B, 25.5.2007 Mark-C, 28.5.2007 Mark-D, 29.6.2007 Mark-E, 30.6.2007 Mark-F, 31.7.08 Mark-G, 30.8.2008 Mark-H, 29.9.2007 Mark-I, 30.12.2007 Mark-J, 31.1.2008 Mark-K,4.3.2008 Mark-L, 31.5.2008 Mark-M, 10.7.08 Mark-N, 16.8.0-8 Mark-O , copy of RC Mark-P, copy of challan dated 28.4.2008 Mark-Q and copy of challan dated 28.7.08 Mark -R and closed the evidence.
9.

In rebuttal, the opposite party No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.R-1, legal notice Mark R-2, postal receipt Mark R-3, legal notice dated 19.8.2008 Mark R-4, postal receipt Mark R-5, final notice dated 31.10.2008 Mark R-6, postal receipt Mark R-7, statement of account Ex.R-8, copy of letter dated 22.9.2008 Mark R-9 and loan agreement Ex.R-10 and closed the evidence.
10.

The learned counsel for the parties have filed written arguments. We have gone through the written submissions and record of the file minutely.
11.

The case of the complainant is that he got financed Swaraj Majda for Rs. 3,75,000/- on the request of OP No.2. The complainant paid the instalments upto August, 2008. It is the grouse of the complainant that in the first week of September, 2008, the officials of the opposite parties came to his residence and demanded Rs. 1.00 lac towards pending instalments. It is further the allegation of the complainant that on 23.9.2008, the officials of the opposite parties came to his residence and took forcible possession of the vehicle. The OP No. 1 has raised the defence that the complainant was under legal obligation to pay the loan amount in 35 instalments. That the vehicle was earlier hypothecated with M/s. Sundram Finance Ltd., for Rs. 3,75,000/-. The complainant made default in the payment of Rs. 3,75,000/-. M/s. Sundram Finance Ltd., repossessed the vehicle. That on the request of the complainant, the replying opposite party paid the amount of Rs. 3,75,000/- to M/s. Sundram Finance Ltd. It is further replied that the guarantor in order to avoid his liability, handed over the vehicle to the answering OP. The replying OP served a legal notice upon the complainant to clear the dues and take back the vehicle, but of no consequences. The instalment amount paid by the complainant had been duly credited in his account. It is denied that the complainant paid the instalments upto August, 2008. That the amount of Rs. 1,78,806/- is outstanding against the complainant.
12.

The learned counsel for OP No. 1 argued that the complainant has brought on record the Receipt of Rs. 44,000/- - Mark-H prepared on a rough paper. It was argued that the receipt – Mark-H is fabricated as the amount of Rs. 44,000/- was never paid by the complainant to the replying OP. More-so, the receipt by the replying OP is always issued on a printed Proforma.
13.

The learned counsel for OP No. 1 further argued that the replying OP issued temporary receipts dated 25.5.07 (Mark -C), 29.6.07 (Mark-E), 27.9.07( Mark-I) and 30.12.07(Mark-J), and thereafter, computerized receipts dated 28.5.07 (Mark-D), 30.6.07 (Mark-F), 31.7.08 (Mark-G), 31.1.08 (Mark-K), 4.3.08 (Mark-L), 31.5.2008 (Mark-M), 10.7.08 (Mark-N) and 6.8.08 (Mark-O) were issued.
14.

The receipt of Rs. 44,000/- - Mark-H is stated to be forged and fabricated document, as neither any temporary receipt nor any computerized receipt was issued. It was further argued that the complainant has not made the payment of the loan amount and is calculating the amount paid through temporary receipts as well as through computerized receipts, referred to above. It means that the intention of the complainant is to take dual advantage i.e., by calculating the amount paid through the temporary receipts and again through computerized receipts, which were issued for the same amount in lieu of the temporary receipts.
15.

Now, it is established on record that to decide the controversy whether the receipt qua Mark-H is a fabricated receipt/document and secondly, whether the complainant intends to draw dual advantage of the payment through temporary receipts and computerized receipts, the elaborate and voluminous evidence is required.
16.

The law is settled that where the matter cannot be adjudicated/decided or tried in summary manner, the Consumer Court has no jurisdiction to decide such complaints. Since the complainant has levelled the allegations of forgery and fabrication, therefore it appears that to decide the controversy effectively between the parties, the elaborate evidence is required to be produced which also involves the examination and cross-examination of witnesses, as such this case cannot be decided in summary jurisdiction under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. Reliance placed on 1995 CTJ 817 (NC), Citybank NA v. Universal Trading Co.,and 2007 CTJ 884 (CP) (SCDRC), Hemant Kumar Chokani versus Bank of America. It is made clear that the complainant may file a Civil Suit in a competent court having jurisdiction in the matter.
17.

As a result of the above discussion, it is held that this Court has not jurisdiction to decide the present complaint, with the result the same is dismissed. However, the complainant may file a Civil Suit in a Competent Court having jurisdiction in the matter, if so advised. No order as to costs. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room.

Vijeshwar Singh Dengta S/O Shri Devi Singh Dengta, Village Charka, P.O. Throl, Tehsil Kotkhai,

District Shimla, H.P.



… Complainant.

Versus



1. Skind and Company, Chambaghat,

District Solan, H.P. through its Manager.



2. Shri Ram Transport Finance Company Ltd.,

Registered Office 123, Angappa Naicken Street

Chennai-600001, through its Managing Director.



3. Shri Ram Transport Finance Company Ltd.,

S.C.O. 477-478 Sector 35-C Chandigarh-160036

Through its Manager.



4. Shriram Transport Finance Co-operative Ltd.,

Kanta Niwas, Near Apple rose Hotel, Kachhi Ghatti,

Shimla-10, through its Branch Manager.



5. Shivam & Company Automobile Consultants,

National Highway Chambaghatt Solan, HP 173213

Through its Manager.



6. The Regional Transport Officer,

through its Secretary State Transport Authority,

Shimla-171004, HP.



7. Shri Ajay Justa S/O Shri R.L. Justa,

Resident of K.D. Verma Colony,

Sanjauli, Shimla-171004.

…Opposite Parties



O R D E R:



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 purchased a bus from the OP No.1, for a total consideration of Rs.6,65,614/-, which was financed by him with the OP No.2, through the OP No.4 and he paid margin money of Rs.1,45,000/-, whereas, the balance amount of Rs.5,20,614/- was financed by the OP No.3, for the period of four years payable in monthly instalments of Rs.17,400/-, alongwith interest at the rate of 8% per annum. He further avers that till date, an amount of Rs.7,07,914/- had already been paid to the OPs No.3 & 4, and a sum of Rs.37,670/- was paid in cash to the OP No.5.



It is further averred that since he had already paid a sum of Rs.7,07,914/- to the OPs No.2 to 4, hence, nothing is payable, even then, the OPs No.2 to 4 are threatening to take the possession of the bus and is not supplying the detail of the amounts. He further avers that an agreement was executed by him with the OP No.7, on the basis of which the bus was given on contract to him w.e.f.01.06.2004 to 31.03.2005, and as such, the OP No.7, was liable to pay the monthly instalments, to the OPs No.2 to 4, who failed to do so, hence, the said instalments were paid by him. 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.2 to 4, in its written version, to the complaint has raised various preliminary objections such as jurisdiction, maintainability of the complaint, estoppel and existence of Arbitration Clause. On merits, it is denied that loan amount of Rs.5,20,614/- was sanctioned in favour of the complainant, rather as per hire purchase agreement, a sum of Rs.5,63,000/- was sanctioned as a loan on interest at the rate of 11.56% and total agreement value of the HPA was assessed at Rs.8,17,800/-.


It is further contended that a sum of Rs.6,80,272/- was paid by the complainant till date and a sum of Rs.3,06,627/- is still recoverable from the complainant. They further contend that on 05.07.2007, the complainant approached the office of the OPs for settlement of account, and as per settlement interse the parties, the complainant was sanctioned a loan of Rs.3,60,000/-, and after settlement/adjustment of outstanding loan amount, a sum of Rs.2,70,000/- was agreed to be paid by the complainant to the OPs, and the complainant has further agreed to withdraw the present complaint. Hence, it is denied that there was any deficiency in service on their part or that they have received the excess amount from the complainant.

3. Thereafter the parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents in support of their rival contentions.

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

5. The only controversy, which requires determination from this Forum, is, as to whether the complaint filed by the complainant against the OPs is maintainable, as the dispute interse the parties is settlement of loan account. Further that the OPs were legally justified in seizing the bus, in complainant making default in repayment of instalments.

6. It is the allegation of the complainant, as asserted in the complaint, that the OPs had received the excess amount of Rs.57,147/- from him, as, he had already paid a total sum of Rs.7,07,914/- against the total sum of Rs.6,50,767/-. On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of the OPs that in fact as per hire purchase agreement a sum of Rs.817,800/- was to be paid to them by the complainant, out of which a sum of Rs.6,80,272/- was paid by him and still a sum of Rs.2,70,000/- is liable to be paid to the OPs, after settlement of the account interse the parties as per compromise dated 05.07.2007.


The complainant no where asserted either in the complaint or in evidence by way of affidavit that no such compromise had arrived between them and he has already paid the entire loan amount. No such document to this effect exist on record from where it can be concluded that nothing is payable by the complainant to the OPs except the bald allegations in the complaint. 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.

7. Moreover, from the pleadings of the parties, it divulges that it is a case of settlement of account and without adducing detailed cogent and convincing evidence, we are of the considered opinion that the instant matter cannot be adjudicated by this Forum, in a summary proceedings, before this Forum to come to a definite conclusion with regard to the settlement of account between the parties. We are also of the considered opinion that the dispute interse the parties involve intricate question of law and fact, which cannot be gone into by this Forum in a summary proceedings.

8. 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.