| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA C.C. No.237 of 05-09-2018 Decided on : 29-07-2022 Surinder Mishra aged about 59 years S/o Bhav Nath Mishra R/o Street No.26/A, near Tungwali Gurudwara, Paras Ram Nagar, Bathinda, now H.No. MCB-Z-6-16375, Street No.32, Dubey Colony, Paras Ram Nagar, Bathinda. Meenakshi Mishra aged about 54 years W/o Surinder Mishra R/o Street No.26/A, near Tungwali Gurudwara, Paras Ram Nagr, Bathinda, now H.No. MCB-Z-6-16375, Street No.32, Dubey Colony, Paras Ram Nagar, Bathinda.
........Complainant Versus Hindju Leyland Finance Company, G.T. Road, Near Bus Stand Ganesha Basti, Bathinda, through its Branch Manager / authorized signatory/ Incharge.
.......Opposite parties
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.Kulwant Singh, Advocate. For opposite party : Sh.S.K. Khurana, Advocate. ORDER Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President The Complainants Surinder Mishra and Meenakshi Mishra (here-in-after referred to as Complainants) have filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before this Forum (Now C.P. Act, 2019, here-in after referred to as 'Act') against Hindju Leyland (here-in-after referred to as opposite party). Briefly stated the case of the complainants is that complainant No.2 purchased Active Honda bearing registration No. PB-03AR-4483 and got it fnanced. The instalment of loan was Rs.2823/- per month. It is alleged that at the time of financing the said Active Honda the officials of opposite party got signatures of complainants on many blank and printed papers and took 10 cheques from complainant No.1 and also got the signature of complainants on document for withdrawal of amount of Rs.2823/- every month from the banker of complainants. It is alleged that the opposite party withdrew the amount of Rs.2823/- every month through 9 cheques till August 2017, but thereafter the opposite party did not withdrew the amount of Rs.2823/- from the account of complainant No.1, whereas the official of the opposite party got signatures on the document to withdraw the amount of Rs.2823/- from the account of complainant No.1. Again in the month of January, 2018 the official of the opposite party called complainants and obtained 4 another cheques of Rs.2823/- each for the month of January, February, March and April 2018, but opposite party did not return the document/voucher in which the opposite party obtained the signatures of complainants for withdrawing the amount from the account of complainants. It is further alleged that now opposite party encashed the cheque for the month of January 2018 and also threatened complainants to pay the amount of Rs.2823/- for the period of September, October, November, December 2017 alongwith costs otherwise they will take the vehicle in their possession wheras the opposite party did not present the cheque No. 301016 to 301027 except one cheque bearing No. 301017. It was the duty of opposite party to collect the payment through the banker of complainant No.1 where the sufficient amount has already been lying in the account of the bank for encashment of the cheque. The complainants alleged that due to the illegal act and conduct of the opposite party, the official of the opposite party mentioned the name of the complainant No.1 in black list and when the complainants went to another showroom for purchase of new vehicle, they did not give the vehicle to the complainant No.1 as the opposite party shown the complainant No.1 as black listed. Complainants many times requested to admit the lawful claim of the complainants, but all in vain. Complainant No. 2 also got served legal notice on 25.1.2018, in this regard but to no effect. On this backdrop of facts, the complainants have prayed for directions to opposite party to not to demand illegal amount; do not snatch the vehicle of the complainant; return the voucher/ document on which the opposite party obtained signatures; name of complainant No.1 be removed from black list and to pay to complainants compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses. Upon notice, opposite party appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply. In written reply, opposite party raised preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable. That the complainants have no locus standi and cause of action to file the complaint. That the complainants have not come to this Commission with clean hands and they suppressed the material facts. It has been pleaded that the true facts are that the complainants approached the opposite party for taking loan for purchase of Honda Active and the opposite party sanctioned Rs. 55,700/- on 27-10-2016. The complainants agreed to repay the loan amount along with finance charges of Rs. 11,140/- and agreed to repay total amount of Rs. 66,840/- in 24 monthly instalments. First instalment was to be paid on 04.12.2016 and the last instalment is to be paid on 05.10.2018. In this regard a loan agreement No. PJPBBATW01924 was signed by the complainant in favour of opposite party. As per loan account statement of complainant dated 10.10.2016, a sum of Rs. 26,569/- is still pending against the complainant, but this fact was not disclosed by the complainants in notice as well as in complaint. On merits, the opposite party admitted that complainants approached the opposite party for taking loan for purchase of Honda Active and the opposite party sanctioned Rs. 55,700/- on dated 27-10-2016 and the complainants agreed to repay the loan amount along with finance charges of Rs. 11,140/- and agreed to repay total amount of Rs. 66,840/- in 24 monthly instalments. First instalment was to be paid on 05-12-2016 and the last instalment is to be paid on 05-10-2018. In this regard a loan agreement No. PJPBBATWO1924 was signed by the complainants in favour of opposite party, and the said financed vehicle is hypothecated in favour of opposite party. It has been pleaded that after admitting terms and condition of the loan agreement as correct, complainant put her/his signature on the loan agreement. It has been denied that opposite party took 10 cheques from the complainant. The opposite party pleaded that complainant issued cheque month by month of Rs. 2823/- to repay his/her loan. The complainant only regularly paid nine instalments month by month from 05-12-2016 to 05-08-2017, which is also shown in loan account statement but after nine instalments, the complainant committed default in repaying loan instalment. The opposite party requested the complainant many times to repay the instalment in time, but the complainant did not pay the instalments of the month of Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec-2017 and after that in the month of Jan-2018 complainant issued a cheque of Rs. 2823/- and again issued another cheque in the month of Feb-2018 of Rs. 2823/- and again issued in the month of March, 2016 of Rs. 2823/-, but not issued cheque in the month of April, 2018. In the, month of May, 2018 complainant issued two cheques of Rs. 2823/- in which one cheque was dishonoured and one cheque was cleared of Rs. 2823/- which is shown in loan account statement. As per the loan account statement, till date, complainant paid only 14 instalments to the opposite party. As per loan account statement, a sum of Rs. 26,569/- is still pending against the complainant but this fact was not disclosed by the complainant in his complaint. The opposite party has further pleaded that as per the guideline of the Government and RBI, all the loan shows in CIBIL. If any one commit default or clear his/her loan, it is also shown in the CIBIL. As per loan account statement of the complainant, a sum of Rs. 26,569/- is still pending against the complainant, which is also reflected in the CIBIL and after clearance of all dues, the same entry will be shown in the CIBIL. After controverting all other averments of the complainants, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint. In support of their complaint, the complainants have tendered into evidence affidavit dated 04.09.2018 of complainant No. 1 (Ex.C-1) and the documents (Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-6). The complainants have also tendered documents (Ex. C-7 & Ex. C-8) in additional evidence. In order to rebut the evidence of complainants, opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit dated 26-10-2018 of Raman Sharma (Ex. OP-1/1) and the documents (Ex. OP-1/2 & Ex. OP-1/3). We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Learned counsel for the parties reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleading.
We have given careful consideration to these submissions. In the case in hand, the allegation of the complainant is that he purchased Activa Honda and got it financed by availing loan from the opposite party. As per complainant at the time of disbursement of loan, 10 cheques for Rs. 2823/- each, being loan instalments, were given by complainant to the opposite party. The opposite party withdrew the amount till August, 2017 but thereafter opposite party did not withdraw the amount despite the fact that officials of the opposite party obtained his signatures on the documents to withdraw the instalment of loan amount. The grudge of the complainant is that opposite party did not withdraw the instalments from the account of the complainant due to which balance amount is reflecting in his CIBIL. The pleading of the opposite parties is that a total loan amount of Rs. 66,840/- was repayable in 24 monthly instalments w.e.f. 5-12-2016 to 5-10-2018. The complainant regularly paid nine instalments upto 5-8-2017 and did not pay instalment for the month September, October, November and December, 2017. Threafter he paid instalments for the month January, February, March, 2018 and did not pay instalment for the month of April, 2018. In May, 2018 he issued two cheques for instalments, out of which one cheque was dishonoured. In this way, complainant paid only 14 instalments and a sum of Rs. 26,569/- is still pending against complainant. Ex. C-2/OP-1/7 is the statement of loan account of complainant. A perusal of this document shows that since from the date of disbursement of loan till August, 2017, complainant was regular in paying loan installments. Cheque No. 507243 dated 5-8-2017 was paid for Rs. 2823/- and thereafter cheque No. 507247 dated 23-1-2018 for Rs. 2823/- was paid. Thus, instalment for the month of September, October, November and December, 2017 were not paid. This document further reveals that thereafter three cheques for January, February and March, 2018 were issued and cheque for the month of April, 2018 was again not issued. Thereafter two Cheques bearing No. 507250 and 310316 were issued out of which cheque No. 310318 has been dishonoured. Thereafter cheques bearing No. 310318 and 310321 issued for the month of July, 2018 and December, 2018 have also been shown as dischonoured. The complainants have not placed on file any other evidence to prove that he was regular in paying installments and was not defaulter whereas Ex. OP-1/4 produced by the opposite party corroborated the version of the opposite party. Perusal of the document (Ex.C-8) reveals that only amount mentioned in the complaint was not impacting credit score rather two accounts of the complainant were negatively impacting his credit score. Further complainant failed to bring on file any evidence proving that which bank refused to sanction loan to him because of his negative credit score. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled Ravneet Singh Bagga Vs. M/s.KLM Royal Dutch Airlines and another, 2001 (1) CLT (SC) has held:- “Deficiency in service-Burden of proof - The burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it.” Thus, keping in view the evidence placed on file by the parties, this Commission is of the considered opinion that the complainants have failed to prove their version by leading cogent and convincing evidence whereas the opposite party has succeded in proving its version by leading sufficient evidence. In the result, this complaint fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to Covid Pandemic and heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record.
Announced : 29-07-2022 (Kanwar Sandeep Singh) President (Shivdev Singh) Member (Paramjeet Kaur) Member
| |
