DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

BATHINDA

C.C. No. 195 of 31-07-2018.

Decided on :28-01-2022.

Sukhwinder Kaur aged about 40 years wife of Sh. Krishan Singh, resident of H. No.23859, Street No.2. Anoop Nagar,Dabwali Road, Near Sirsa Phatak, Bathinda. ........Complainant

Versus

Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd, Branch office at Jindal Complex, Near Hanuman Chowk, Opp. Madan Hospital, G.T Road, Bathinda through its Attorney and Senior Associate Legal Co-coordinator.

.......Opposite party.

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President

Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member.

Smt. Paramjeet Kaur, Member

Present

For the complainant : Sh. Harraj Singh, Advocate

For opposite party : Sh. BJS Ahluwalia, Advocate.

ORDER

Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President

1. The complainant Sukhwinder Kaur (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Now C.P. Act, 2019, here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Forum (Now Commission) against Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd, (here-in-after referred to as opposite party).

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that she took a loan of Rs. 2,04,650/- from opposite party for purchase of vehicle Eicher 11 10/H HSD bearing Registration No. PB-03V-8599, Engine No. AC229207 and Chassis No. ACO40336 vide loan agreement No. XVFPBDA 00001308962 on 17-11-2014 and after purchasing the said vehicle, the complainant got the same registered in her name. The complainant also got the hypothecation of opposite party incorporated in the registration certificate of the said vehicle.

3. It is alleged that complainant started making payment of the EMIs with the opposite party at Bathinda and she has already repaid the entire amount of loan along with up to date interest and nothing is due or outstanding against the complainant.

4. It is alleged that though the loan account has been settled in full and final, the opposite party has failed to issue requisite No Due certificate in favour of the complainant regarding the aforesaid vehicle till date. The complainant has been repeatedly requesting opposite party to issue No Due Certificate in favour of the complaisant, so that the complainant may be able to get the hypothecation of the opposite party cancelled from the original RC of the said vehicle, but to no effect. Without getting the hypothecation cancelled, the complainant is unable to dispose off/sell the aforesaid vehicle and due to the non issuance of the No Due certificate by the opposite party, the complainant is suffering from great mental tension, agony, botheration, harassment and financial loss. The complainant repeatedly visited the office of the opposite party with a request to issue no due certificate in her favour, but to no effect and ultimately refused to issue the same.

5. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to issue No Due Certificate in favour of the complainant regarding said vehicle of the complainant bearing No. PB-03V-8599 for the cancellation of hypothecation and also pay compensation amounting to Rs.50,000/- on account of loss suffered by her besides Rs, 5500/- as litigation expenses.

6. Upon notice the opposite party put in appearance through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply. In written reply, the opposite party raised legal objections that the complaint is not maintainable in its present form; that the complainant does not come within the definition of consumer under the Provision of Consumer Protection Act, as the complainant took loan for purchase of the vehicle for commercial usage and is running a transport by taking loan for the purchase of a number of vehicles from the opposite party vide loan agreement No. XVFPBD00001619660, No. XVFPBD00001288874, No. XVFPBD00001308962; that the complainant has no locus standi or cause of action to file the present complaint; that the complainant is estoped from filing the present complaint by his own act and conduct; that the complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands rather she has intentionally concealed the true and material facts and has grossly twisted the facts as per her own convenience; that this Commission has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement between the parties and that the complaint is totally false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the complainant

7. On merits, the opposite party admitted regarding purchase of the vehicle by complainant after taking loan from the opposite party. It is pleaded that besides the said vehicle, the complainant also purchased three other vehicles from the opposite party by taking loans against different vehicles and executed different loan agreements and as such the complainant is doing the business of Transport at large scale and does not come under the purview of consumer. It is further pleaded that the complainant is defaulter of the opposite party, having failed to clear the loan against the remaining three loan accounts. The complainant has committed default in the re-payment of the loan amount in different loan accounts. The complainant is not entitled to get No Due Certificate from the opposite party until and unless the entire loans are cleared by the opposite party. The complainant herself is a wrong doer and cannot be allowed to take benefit of her own wrongs and willful default in making payment of the loan installments in the remaining three loan accounts of the complainant with the opposite party. After controverting all other averments, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint.

8. In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence photo copy of RC (Ex.C-1), photocopy of account statement (Ex.C-2), affidavit of Sukhwinder Kaur dated 30-07-2018 (Ex.C-3) and closed the evidence.

9. In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, the opposite party tendered into evidence photo copy of loan agreement (Ex.OP1/1 to OP-1/3), affidavit of Sarabjit Singh dated 18-10-2018 (Ex.OP-1/4) and closed evidence.

10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

11. In the case in hand, it is admitted facts of the parties that complainant took a loan of Rs. 2,04,650/- from the opposite party for purchase of vehicle Eicher 11 10/H HSD bearing registration No. PB-03V-8599 vide loan Agreement No. XVFPBDA 00001308962 on 17-11-2014 (OP-1/3). The complainant paid entire loan amount with up-to-date interest to the opposite party. The complainant applied for No Due Certificate against the said loan account to apply with the concerned authority for removal of hypothecation from the registration certificate of the vehicle in questions, but the opposite party denied the same.

12. The opposite party in its written reply pleaded that complainant has availed three loans and until and unless the entire loan accounts are cleared, complainant is not entitled to No Due Certificate against the vehicle in question.

13. The opposite party has placed on file Loan Agreements Ex. OP-1/ 1 to Ex. OP-1/3. The complainant has executed separate loan agreement against each loan account. Ex. OP-1/3 is the agreement against the vehicle in question. There is no plea of the opposite party that any amount against loan account of the vehicle in question is outstanding against the complainant. When there is separate/individual agreement/contract executed between the parties for each loan account, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party for withholding the No Due Certificate of complainant against the loan account which already stands cleared and has no connection with other loan accounts.

14. Resultantly, this complaint is partly allowed with Rs. 10,000/- as cost and compensation. The opposite party is directed to issue No Due Certificate to complainant against the loan account of aforesaid vehicle.

15. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the complainant will also be entitled to interest @9% on the amount of cost and compensation i.e. Rs. 10,000/- from the date of order till realization.

16. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.

17. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record.

    Announced :

    28-1-2022

    (Kanwar Sandeep Singh)

    President

     

     

    (Shivdev Singh)

    Member

     

    (Paramjeet Kaur)

    Member