Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/296/2018

Meenakshi Devi W/o Dharinder - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sheela Motors - Opp.Party(s)

Pankaj Kamboj

28 Mar 2023

ORDER

THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, YAMUNA   NAGAR AT JAGADHRI.

 

                                                          Complaint No.296 of 2018.

                                                          Date of institution:21.8.2018.

                                                          Date of decision: 28.03.2023.

 

Smt. Meenakshi Devi, aged about 33 years, wife of Sh. Dharinder, resident of village Guglon, P.O. Bambhol, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar, Haryana.

 

                                                                                      …Complainant.

                                      Versus.

1.       Sheela Motors, Near Buria Chowk, Jagadhri, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar, through its Manager/Authorized signatory.

2.       L & T Finance Company, Plot No.174, 3^rd Floor, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh, through its Manager/Authorized signatory.

 

                                                                                      ….Respondents.

 

CORAM:    GULAB SINGH, PRESIDENT.

                   GEETA PARKASH, LADY MEMBER.   

 

Present:       Sh. Pankaj Kamboj, Adv. for complainant.

                    Sh. Ashwani Batra, Adv. for opponent No.1.

                    Sh. Balraj Singh Rana, Adv. for opponent No.2.

 

ORDER:

 

1.             This is complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short Act).

2.         Going through the contents of the complaint and supportive documents Ex.C.1 to Ex.C.7, written statements and supportive documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R6, briefly admitted facts of the complaint are, the complainant in order to purchase tractor make Mahindra 555 Power Plus (for short tractor) from the opponent No.1 on 23.02.2018, raised loan in the sum of Rs.4,50,000/- and Loan Agreement Ex.R2 was executed and signed by the parties.

3.            Complainant alleged the loan amount was repayable by her in 36 installments i.e. Rs.14,111/- per month. However, on 8.3.2018, when she contacted to the opponent No.2, she was told to deposit first installment of Rs.15,344/- which was more than agreed amount of Rs.14,111/-. She raised her protest, telling there was difference of Rs.1,233/- per installment, as per agreement and demanded installment. She requested to waive off the exaggerated amount of Rs.1,233/- qua the installment and expressed her desire to make repayment of loan at the rate of Rs.14,111/- per installment. Thereafter, opponent sent repayment schedule and it was found loan amount in the sum of Rs.4,45,000/- sanctioned instead of Rs.4,50,000/- and calculated interest on the loan amount was Rs.1,07,384/- instead of Rs.58,000/- by charging extra amount of Rs.49,384/-  and it was an illegal act, tentamounting to deficiency in service, causing her mental agony, financial loss, harassment and she again raised her grievance by sending legal notice dated 22.03.2018 Ex.C3 to the opponents, but the opponents despite the receipt of legal notice, failed to redress her grievance, constraining her to file the complaint before this Commission.

4.             The opponent No.1 in its written statement has not disputed the purchase of tractor by the complainant, by getting an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- financed from the opponent No.2 and remaining amount was paid by the complainant herself and in material respect, it denied the commission of any act of  negligence, deficiency in service.

5.             The opponent No.2 in its written statement pleading inter-alia, non maintainability of the complaint, the complainant not falling within the definition of consumer and rather the complainant as consumer, executed Loan-cum-Hypothecation Agreement Ex.R2 and purchased the tractor for commercial purposes and it charged it recovered. The complainant is liable to pay principal loan amount agreed interest, as per agreed rate of interest in terms of Ex.R2 which is not being and in case there was any dispute, then, as per Clause 12 of the Loan Agreement Ex.R2, the dispute is to be decided by the arbitrator appointed as per the terms of the loan agreement Ex.R2. So, complaint is not maintainable, is liable to be dismissed.

6.             In the course of arguments, Sh. Pankaj Kamboj, Adv. for complainant, reiterated to the version made into the complaint and he apprised this Commission about the evidence adduced on record by the opponent to prove her version.

7.             On the another hand, Sh. Ashwani Batra, Adv. for opponent No.1 in the course of his marathon arguments in material respect, reiterated to the version made into the written statement of the opponent No.1 and endeavour to prove act and conduct of the opponent No.1 regarding not commission of any act of negligence and deficiency in service.

8.              On the other hand, Sh. Balraj Singh Rana, Adv. for opponent No.2 in the course of his marathon arguments in material respect, reiterated to the version made into the written statement of the opponent No.2 and drawn the attention of this Commission towards the Loan-cum-Hypothecation Agreement Ex.R2 and terms and conditions of the loan agreement dated 27.02.2018 Ex.R3.

9.          There are two moot questions before this Commission, firstly, whether, the complaint is not maintainable on the ground the complainant had purchased tractor for the purpose of commercial purposes and the dispute involved in the complaint is a required to be decided by the Commission rather by the Arbitrator, creation of Loan-cum-Hypothecation Agreement Ex.R2, Secondly, whether the opponents committed any act of negligence, illegality, deficiency in service, making the complainant entitled to the relief as prayed or to what extent and against whom?

10.           So far, first question is concerned, opponent alleged that the complainant purchased the tractor for commercial purposes, so the complaint is not maintainable. However, this Commission do not agree to the objection raised by the opponent because the complainant has not raised any dispute with regard to the defect in the tractor, purchased from the opponent No.1 by getting financed from opponent No.2 on 27.2.2018, rather, dispute in the case, is with regard to the terms and conditions of the Loan Agreement Ex.R2, in this regard objection raised by the opponent is overruled.

11.          The opponent No.2 has raised another objection with regard to the non maintainability of the complaint. In view of invoking of arbitration Clause 2, resolve of the dispute being creation of the Loan Agreement Ex.R2. Again this Commission do not agree to the contentions of the opponent No.2, the filing of the complaint before the Consumer Commission is an additional remedy as envisaged under Section 3 of the Act, therefore, complaint is maintainable and the objection raised by the opponent No.2 is overruled.

12.          Coming to the answer of the second question with the merits of the case, the pivot of the case is revolving around the terms and conditions of the Loan and Hypothecated Agreement Ex.R2 and Ex.R3. It is not the case of the complainant that she is an illiterate person. She admitted, the execution of document regarding borrowing of loan at the instance of one Rupinder Singh. She nowhere alleged that the said Rupinder Singh, had obtained her signature under duress or obtained her signature on blank papers. Rupinder Singh had assured the providing of loan in the sum of  Rs.4,50,000/- but as per version of the complainant, loan in the sum of Rs.4,45,000/- was sanctioned in her favour, it means, Rupinder Singh had not himself represented any fact. She signed the Loan Agreement including its terms and conditions Ex.R2 and Ex.R3 in English, it means, she is well educated and there was co-borrower also. She again cannot wriggle out from the contents of the documents Ex.R2 and Ex.R3 which provided return of loan of Rs.4,45,000/- by way of 36 installments of Rs.15,344/- monthly at the rate of interest 8.04%, in this way, from the own pleading of the complainant, document relied upon by her and opponents. Not a single circumstance or an iota of evidence is on record to say at any point of time, opponents committed any act of illegality, negligence, deficiency in service. The complaint is devoid on merits and is liable to be dismissed.

13.        Furthermore, during the course of arguments, it has clearly been considered by the counsel for the complainant that that opponent No.2 issue No Dues Certificate on 16^th July, 2021 in her favour and copy of the same has also been placed on record, when the complainant already paid the loan amount to the complainant. In view of the terms and conditions of the loan agreement Ex.R2, then no further cause of action, survives in favour of the complainant.

14.        Hence, due to reasons stated here-in-before, the complaint is dismissed, it being devoid on merits, leaving the parties to bear their own cost of litigation.

15.      Before parting with this order, it is pertinent to mention, the complaint has not been decided within the prescribed period of limitation of time. History of the proceedings shows, initially proceeding of summary trial was not followed and complainant herself, delayed the proceeding, for the purpose of leading evidence and then, opponents delayed the proceeding for concluding their evidence and Covid-19 became stumbling block in the timely disposal of the complaints. Apart from it, there was adjournment due to suspension of work by Members of Bar, Quorum of this Commission not complete and Bharat Band etc and there is also shortage of requisite infrastructure in this Commission.

16.         File be consigned to the records.

Dated: 28.3.2023.

                                                                         (GULAB SINGH)

                                                                   Distt. & Sessions Judge (VRS),

                                                                              PRESIDENT,

                                                                              DCDRC, YNR.  

(GEETA PARKASH)             

 MEMBER.                            

Typed by: Aarti