Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/08/606

DASHRATHLAL SINGHAI - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI HOME FINANCE . LTD. AND OTHER'S - Opp.Party(s)

DEEPAK SHARMA

28 Oct 2022

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                         

                             PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 606 OF 2008

(Arising out of order dated 18.01.2008 passed in C.C.No. 172/2006 by District Commission, Sagar)

 

DASHRATHLAL SINGHAI,

S/O SHRI LAXMICHAND SINGHAI,

R/O BESIDE OLD POLICE STATION,

BIHARI JI WARD, KHURAI,

DISTRICT-SAGAR (M.P.)                                                                           … APPELLANT.

 

Versus

 

1. ICICI HOME FINANCE LIMITED,

    THROUGH MANAGER, LANDMARK BUILDING,

    WEST RING, RACE COURSE CIRCLE,

    BARODA.

 

2. ICICI HOME FINANCE LIMITED,

    THROUGH MANAGER,

     ABOVE MRF SHOWROOM,

     REWA ROAD, SATNA (M.P.)

 

3. ICICI HOME FINANCE LIMITED,

    THROUGH MANAGER,

     NEAR PRAGATI PETROL PUMP,

     ZONE-II, M.P.NAGAR, BHOPAL (M.P.)

 

4. COLLECTION MANAGER,

    ICICI BANK, FIRST FLOOR,

    LAXMI TOWERS, 576/1 M.G.ROAD,

    INDORE (M.P.)                                                       …. RESPONDENT.   

 

                     

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                : PRESIDING MEMBER

            HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY        :          MEMBER

            HON’BLE SHRI D. K. SHRIVASTAVA   :          MEMBER

                      

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Shri Ravindra Tiwari, learned counsel for appellant.

           Shri Ajay Dubey, learned counsel for the respondents.

 

 

 

 

 

 -2-

O R D E R

(Passed On 28.10.2022)

                                The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Presiding Member:             

This appeal by the complainant/appellant is directed against the order dated 18.01.2008 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sagar (For short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.172/2006 whereby the complaint filed by the complainant/appellant has been dismissed by the District Commission.

 2.               Facts of the case in brief as stated by the complainant/appellant are that on 26.12.2003 he had purchased a Sarpanch DI 275 tractor bearing registration number MP-15 L-3078 after availing finance for a sum of Rs.2,70,000/- from the Bhopal branch of opposite party home finance limited for which he had deposited Rs.85,100/- as margin money. It is alleged that he made repayment of loan in 20 EMI to the ICICI bank and nothing was due.  Even then, the opposite party/respondent-bank vide notice dated 13.12.2005 demanded Rs.24,800/- and vide notice dated 31.12.2005 demanded Rs.44,760/-.  It is alleged that on 07.02.2006 Shri Rajesh Gupta, Manager of the bank along with his 10 companions came to seize the tractor to which the complainant and his sons objected and then on 07.02.2006 he received Rs.42,000/- against the tractor of which no receipt was given by him. The complainant therefore filed a police complaint against the said Manager. It is also alleged that the opposite party took 10 post-dated signed

-3-

cheques from the complainant which were also not returned. He therefore filed a complaint before the District Commission alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties.

3.                The opposite party/respondent resisted the complaint stating that the complainant/appellant has filed a complaint on frivolous grounds.  In fact on 07.02.2006, when Shri Rajesh Gupta has gone to the complainant’s place for recovering the due premiums his sons Ankit and Ankur came out with pistol and sword and threatened to kill him of which police report was lodged by Shri Rajesh Gupta in Police Station, Khurai. In fact, the complainant did not give him Rs.42,000/-.  A sum of Rs.2,70,000/- was financed to the complainant for purchase of a tractor, which was to be repaid in 20 quarterly premiums in the sum of Rs.19,960/- during a period of five years, but as per agreement, the appellant failed to deposit the same and became defaulter. Since last three years he did not pay any amount towards loan. The appellant paid only 94,960/- to the bank whereas there is outstanding amount of Rs.2,37,333/- is against him. It is therefore prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.               The District Commission dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant holding that the complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service against the opposite parties.

5.                Heard learned counsel for the parties.  Perused the record.

-4-

6.                Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant argued that the District Commission erred in dismissing the complaint. The District Commission failed to consider the documents and evidence filed by the complainant. The District Commission also failed to consider that the appellant being a simple farmer and unaware of requirements of law, did not lodge a report with the police station on 07.02.2006 itself.  It is therefore prayed that the appeal be allowed and the relief as claimed in complaint be awarded.

7.                Learned counsel for the opposite party/respondent supporting the impugned order argued that the complainant/appellant is a defaulter and when Shri Rajesh Gupta, visited his place to recover the dues, his sons came out and threatened to kill him of which police report was also lodged by Shri Rajesh Gupta. The appellant did not give Rs.42,000/- to Shri Rajesh Gupta.  Thus in the absence of any evidence regarding payment of Rs.42,000/- to the opposite party-bank, the District Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint. 

8.                The complainant has filed certain documents along with his affidavit. On behalf of opposite party Shri Rajesh Gupta has filed his affidavit and two documents D-1 and D-2. On going through the documents and affidavits, we find that it is an admitted position that the complainant/appellant took financial assistance from the opposite

-5-

parties/respondents and as per documents filed by him, it is clear that still there is outstanding against him. The respondents have filed document D-2, statement showing the amount paid and the amount due against the appellant. Shri Rajesh Gupta, in his affidavit has categorically stated that when he had gone to recover the amount of Rs.40,142/- to the appellant’s house his son Ankur Singhai came out with pistol and sword and threatened him to kill of which he made a complaint to the Station Officer, Police Station Khurai on the very same day.  He further submitted that thereafter the appellant also threatened him on phone calls. He further stated that the appellant had paid only Rs.94,960/- and Rs.2,37,333/- is due against him, which is evident from D-2.

9.                On going through the record, we find that the complainant failed to substantiate his allegation by way of any documentary evidence that he had paid all the dues and that Rs.42,000/- has been paid by him in cash to the collection Manager, Shri Rajesh Gupta.

10.              In the absence of any evidence the inference drawn by the District Commission is just and proper and the District Commission nowhere erred in dismissing the complaint filed by the complainant/appellant.   

11.              In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in impugned order. It is upheld.

 

-6-

12.              In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

 

       (A. K. Tiwari)      (Dr. Srikant Pandey)   (D. K. Shrivastava)

 Presiding Member            Member                     Member