Vivek Dutt Dangwal S/O Shri Prem Ballabh Dangwal, Village & P.O. Majra, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P. at present residing at Thakur Niwas below By Pass Road Near Shiv Mandir Kasumpti, Shimla.





… Complainant.

Versus



1. Shri Gurvinder Pal son of late Shri Gian Singh R/O 188/18 Subzi Mandi, Shimla, H.P.



2. India Lease Development Limited 4th Floor, 21 Barkhamba Road, New Delhi-1 through its Director.



…Opposite Parties.



For the complainant: Mr. Tapan Chauhan, Advocate vice

Mr. Arvind Sharma, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party

No.1: Mr. Amit Vaid, Advocate



For the Opposite Party

No.2: Mr. Rajinder Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. Varinder Tajta, Advocate



O R D E R:



Pritam Singh (District Judge) President:- This order shall dispose of complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The case of the complainant in brief is that he was sanctioned loan for purchase of jeep Commander of Mahindra by OP No.2 through the OP NO.1 and EMI was fixed at the rate of Rs.9930/- per month. It is further case of the complainant that upto March, 2002, he paid the instalments of the loan amount regularly to the OP No.2 through the OP No.1 and only 7 instalments were left to be paid by him after March, 2002. That after clearing his entire loan he requested the OPs for issuance of no objection certificate qua vehicle in question, but the same was not issued. Rather in October, 2004 he received notice from Shri Abhinav Vishist Advocate, who as per the loan agreement between the parties was to act as an Arbitrator in case of any dispute and through this notice he was required to pay balance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the OP No.2. That thereafter, he visited the Arbitrator and attended the proceedings at Delhi. That ultimately the matter was settled and he paid a lump sum of Rs.180,000/- to the OP No.2 as full and final settlement of the loan amount. It is further alleged by the complainant that the OP No.1 also gave Rs.35,000/- to him and receipt to this effect was executed. That as per terms of settlement, the OP No.1 undertook to pay back the amount of the disputed instalments of the loan amount which he had received, but he failed to repay the disputed instalments amount. Hence, feeling dissatisfied and aggrieved by the act of the OPs, the complainant perforce filed this complaint against the OPs.



2. The complaint is resisted by OPs who took some preliminary objections regarding maintainability of complaint, status of the complainant as a consumer, jurisdiction of Forum to try this complaint etc. On merits, the OPs refuted the allegations of the complainant alleging that that after settling the account with them on 23.11.2004 and 29.11.2004 respectively and executing the documents in this behalf, the complainant was to receive nothing from OP No.1 qua repayment of loan amount of vehicle in question. Hence, the complaint being false, frivolous and vexatious is liable to be dismissed. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their claim/counter claim.



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



4. It may be stated that undisputedly the complainant was sanctioned loan for purchasing of Mahindra make jeep by OP No.2 through the OP No.1 and EMI was fixed at the rate of Rs.9930/- per month. It is the case of the complainant that upto March, 2002, he paid the EMI regularly to the OP No. 2 through the No.1 and only seven instalments were left to be paid, which were also paid by him to the OP No.2 through the OP No.1, and when he requested the OPs to issue no objection certificate in respect of the vehicle purchased by him, the same was not issued. That in October, 2004, he received notice from Shri Abhinav Vishist, Advocate who as per loan agreement inter-se parties was to act as Arbitrator in case of any dispute between the parties and through this notice he was required to pay balance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the OP No.2. Therefore, he went to Delhi and visited the said Arbitrator and attended the proceedings and ultimately the matter was settled and he paid balance amount of Rs.1,80,000/- to the OP No.2 as full and final settlement of the loan amount. It is also the case of the complainant that the OP No.1 also gave Rs.35,000/- to him and the documents Annexure C-8, Annexure C-9/R-2, in this behalf were executed. That as per the terms of the document Annexure C-8 the OP No.1 undertook to pay back the amount of the disputed EMI of the loan amount to him who failed to do so.



5. The OP No.1, however, refuted the allegation of the complainant. He alleged that after settling the account with him on 23.11.2004 and executing the receipt Annexure C-8, the complainant was to receive back nothing from him qua loan of vehicle in question.



6. In this connection, it may be stated that as per the contents of the receipt Annexure C-9/R-1 the complainant had paid outstanding balance of Rs.1,80 lacs to the OP No.2 and undertook to withdraw the consumer complaint filed by him and pending against the OP No.2. This document was executed by the complainant on 29.11.2004, but even then he did not withdraw this complaint against the OP No.2. Similarly, as per document-receipt Annexure C-8 relied upon by the complainant, the OP No.1 paid a sum of Rs.35,000/- to the complainant through his attorney Shri Vikram Dutt regarding dispute of vehicle bearing registration No.HP-17-6238. In this receipt Annexure C-8, General Attorney of the complainant namely Shri Vikram Dutt, no where wrote that the OP No.1 also undertook to pay the amount of the disputed EMI to the complainant after 23.11.2004. This receipt also has been executed by General Attorney of complainant during pendency of this complaint. Hence, it is not understood as why complainant is still pursuing this complaint against the OPs after executing the documents Annexure C-8/R-1 & C-9 during the pendency of complaint.



7. Moreover, no material/document has been placed on record by the complainant in support of his plea that he in fact had liquidated the entire loan amount by making payment of the EMI regularly to the OP No.2 through the OP No.1 and that the OP No.1 instead of depositing the EMI regularly with the OP No.2 misappropriated some EMI amount and he was forced under the compelling circumstances to pay balance outstanding loan amount of Rs.1.80 lacs to the OP No.2 vide receipt Annexure R-1 on 29.11.2004. The complainant further did not place on record any documentary proof to prove that he used to pay the EMI of loan amount regularly to the OP No.2 through the OP No.1 Therefore, without cogent documentary evidence led on record by the complainant, it is not possible for us to hold that the OP No.1 had given any undertaking to him to pay back amount of disputed EMI to him at the time of executing receipt Annexure C-8 on 23.11.2004.


8. The cumulative effect of the aforesaid discussion is that there is no substance in the compliant and it being false, frivolous and vexatious is liable to be dismissed. It is ordered accordingly. No order as to the costs.