District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.

Consumer Complaint  No.291/2020.

 Date of Institution: 08.09.2020.

Date of Order: 06.12.2022.

Chander Pal S/o Sh. Rattan Singh R/o village Andhop, Tehsil Hathin, District Palwal, Haryana.                                      

                                                          …….Complainant……..

                                                Versus

M/s. DJT Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. Regd. Office: Ground Floor, 7, Jor Bagh, New Delhi – 110 003 through its Managing Diector/Director/Principal Officer.

Service also effected at:-

M/s. G.D.Automobiles, Near Metro Station, Sector-28, Mewla Maharajpur, Mathura  Road, Faridabad through its Manager/Principal Officer.

                                                                   …Opposite party……

Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Now  amended  Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.

BEFORE:            Amit Arora……………..President

Mukesh Sharma…………Member.

Indira Bhadana………….Member.

PRESENT:                   Sh.  Hari Om Sharma,  counsel for the complainant.

                             Sh. Tarun Kumar, AR on behalf of opposite party No.1.

                             Opposite party No.2 given up vide order dated 02.02.2021.

ORDER:  

                             The facts in brief of the complaint are that  the complainant approached M/s. G.D. Automobiles and purchased a three-wheeler (Bajaj) Maxmima Z CNG) and same was financed with opposite party vide loan account NO. DJTCVDEL0000101.  The total financed amount was Rs.1,65,610/-, finance charges Rs.53,315/- i.e. total contract value Rs.2,18,925/- and same was repayable by the complainant in 23 monthly installments @ Rs.9470/- per month, the EMIs commenced from May 2018.  The complainant used to make the EMIs to the opposite party from time to time.  Even during lock down period, the complainant kept and maintained sufficient balance in his bank account for the EMIs, but the opposite party deliberately did not use/avail the ECS facility.  Whereas, the complainant had already made 20 EMIs to the opposite party and only three EMIs was balance.  Now the complainant  approached the opposite party to clear the said remaining three EMIs and requested to issue NDC/No Dues Certificate, but the opposite party demanded  a sum of Rs.46,204/- in an illegal manner, whereas, actual dues of the opposite party only Rs.28,410/- and the complainant requested the opposite party to receive the said actual balance amount, but the opposite party did not pay any heed and threatened the complainant that if, the complainant would not pay the said illegal amount, the   opposite party would snatch the said vehicle of the complainant with the help of its muscleman forcibly, illegally and unlawfully. The complainant sent legal notice  dated 27.07.2020 to the opposite party but all in vain. The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint.  The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to:

a)                receive the actual outstanding amount of Rs.28,410/- from the complainant.

b)                Issue No Dues Certificate in respect of loan account NO. DJTCVDEL0000101:

 c)                pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .

d)                 pay Rs. 21,000 /-as litigation expenses.

2.                Opposite party put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the complainant approached the opposite party, seeking loan for the purchase of a new vehicle alongwith accessories and other incidental expenses.  The opposite party on the  request of the complainant granted the loan to the complainant, as requested for, vide Loan-cum-Hypothecation Agreement dated 24.04.2018 (Agreement), bearing Loan Account NO. DJTCVDEL0000101 to the complainant.    As per the agreement, opposite party agreed to provide  finance amount of Rs.1,65,610/- on which the finance charges were agreed to be Rs.53,315/-.  Thus, the total contract value of the agreement was Rs.2,18,925/-.  The complainant agreed to the same and undertook to remain bound to the terms and conditions of the agreement, including the payment of the EMIs on due date, payment of interest and charges and any other amount under the agreement.  As per the terms of the said agreement, the loan start date was 20.05.2018 and loan maturity date was 20.03.2020.  The instalment amounts due as on 20.05.2018 was Rs.9,925/- and which the complainant paid as per the terms of the agreement.  Thereafter, the instalment amount agreed to be paid by the complainant was Rs.9,500/- which the complainant had defaulted to pay, in perpetuity on due date and in deficit of the agreed amount.  The said agreement was also executed by Mr. Lekhraj, who was the co-borrower alongwith the complainant. Both the complainant and the co-borrower had executed the agreement and were bound by the terms of the same.  The opposite party had been impressing upon the complainant to deposit his EMI dues alongwith the interest for the delay deposit and the penal interest at the agreed rate.  However, the  complainant had been avoiding his obligations under the agreement and was defaulting the same, even as on today.  The opposite party had explained the consequences of the default by the complainant in person and apprised him of the dues that he was liable to pay to the opposite party under the agreement, however the complainant did not pay any heed to the same. The opposite party even granted the relaxations to the complainant owing to the prevailing pandemic situation.  The complainant nevertheless failed to heed to the relaxations offered by the opposite party.  Accordingly, the opposite party served upon the complainant loan recall notice dated 17.08.2020 calling upon the complainant to pay the outstanding EMI, delayed payment charges and other contractual charges amounting to Rs.46,654/-.  The complainant was further called upon to return the vehicle to the opposite party.  The said amount of Rs.46,654/- as on 17.08.2020 was towards the outstanding EMI amounting to Rs.29,040/- towards cheques bouncing charges amount to Rs.2360/- and towards penal amount of Rs.15,254/-. The said loan recall notice was duly served upon the complainant and complainant in counter to the same had commenced the present case before this Hon’ble Commission.   Opposite party denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.

5.                In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite party– DJT Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.with the prayer to: a)  receive the actual outstanding amount of Rs.28,410/- from the complainant. b) Issue No

 Dues Certificate in respect of loan account NO. DJTCVDEL0000101:  c)   pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . d)     pay Rs. 21,000 /-as litigation expenses.

                   To establish his case the complainant  has led in his evidence,  Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Chander Pal, Ex.C-1 -  Form of the Temporary certificate of registration, Ex.C-2 – Delivery challan, Ex.C3 – RC, Ex.C-4 – bank accounts, Ex.C-7 – legal notice, Ex.C-8 & 9 – postal receipts, Ex.C-10 – Final demand cum loan recall notice, Ex.C-11 -  reply to legal notice.

On the other hand counsel for the opposite party strongly agitated and

opposed.  As per the evidence of the opposite party  Ex.DW1/B – affidavit of Tarun Kumar S/o Ashok Kumar, Authorized representative of DJT Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. Having its office at 7, Ground floor, Jor Bagh, New Delhi – 110003, presently at Faridabad, Ex.DW1/1 – resolution, Ex.DW1/3 – Loan Recall Notice,, Ex.DW1/4 – legal notice,, Ex.DW1/5 – reply to loan recall notice, Ex.DW1/6 -  reply to notice written by Nipun Malhotra to  Shri Hari Om Sharma, Ex.DW1/7 – statement of deposits, Ex.DW1/8 – statement.

6.                During the course of arguments, Shri Tarun Kumar, AR on behalf of opposite party No.1 has stated at Bar that they are ready to issue the NOC in favour of the complainant, subject to charges of cheque bouncing and interest on the remaining 3 EMI worth of Rs.9470/-/.

7.                On the basis of the statement of Shri Tarun Kumar, AR on behalf of opposite party No.1, the Commission is of the opinion that the complaint is disposed off with the direction to the complainant to pay 3 EMI i.e. Jan, Feb. March  alongwith  lump charges of Rs.3500/- of cheque bouncing charges plus interest on the defaulted EMI to the opposite party No.1.  After receiving the above amount from the complainant, opposite party is directed to issue NOC in favour of

the complainant.  There are no order as to costs. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order.  Copy of this order be given to the parties  concerned free of costs and file be consigned to record room.

Announced on:  06.12.2022                                 (Amit Arora)

                                                                                  President

                     District Consumer Disputes

           Redressal  Commission, Faridabad.

                                                (Mukesh Sharma)

                Member

          District Consumer Disputes

                                                                    Redressal Commission, Faridabad.

                                                (Indira Bhadana)

                Member

          District Consumer Disputes

                                                                    Redressal Commission, Faridabad.