Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/17/76

Rajinder Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tata Motors Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Yash Paul Adv.

27 Aug 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 76 of 06.02.2017

Date of Decision            :   ­­27.08.2021

Rajinder Kumar aged about 42 son of Om Parkash, resident of House No.262, Village Bahadurke, District Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

1. Tata Motors Finance Limited, DGP House, 4^th Floor Old, Prabhadevi Road, Mumbai-400025 through its Managing Director/Director/Authorized signatory.
2. Tata Motors Finance Limited, TMFL Ludhiana Branch, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana through its Managing Director/Director/Authorized signatory.
3. Managing Director/Director/Authorized Signatory of M/s. Tata Motors Finance Limited, TMFL Ludhiana Branch, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana.

…..Opposite parties

 

 

                    Complaint U/s. 2, 12 & 14 of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

 

QUORUM:

SH.K.K.KAREER, PRESIDENT

MS.JYOTSNA THATAI, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For Complainant            :         Sh. B.S. Kaushik, Advocate.

For OPs                         :         Sh. Sudhir Gakhar, Advocate.

 

PER K.K.KAREER, PRESIDENT

 

1.                Brief facts of the case of the complainant are that he purchased commercial vehicle of Tata-M make A.C.E. Class LGV bearing registration No.PB-10-DM-6265 after raising loan from OP1 and OP2 on hire purchase basis vide contract No.5000706491. The loan was repayable in 47 equal installments of Rs.8263/- each. The complainant repaid the entire loan amount. Last payment of Rs.3230/- was made vide receipt dated 31.03.2015. At that time, the OPs assured the complainant that they would issue the clearance certificate to enable the complainant to get the hire purchase entry removed from the registration certificate of the vehicle. However, instead of issuance of clearance certificate, the OPs raised a demand of Rs.79,000/- without any rhyme or reason, even though the complainant had repaid the entire loan amount and nothing was left to be paid. The last statement of account dated 08.02.2014 clearly shows that the loan amount has been repaid in toto. Non issuance of clearance certificate amounts to deficiency of service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. In the end, it has been requested that the OPs be directed to issue clearance certificate to the complainant and be also made to pay a compensation for Rs.1,00,000/- for  having indulged in unfair trade practice and deficiency of service.

2.                The complaint has been resisted by the OPs. In the written statement filed on behalf of the OPs, it has been pleaded that the complaint is based upon false and frivolous allegations. In fact, the complainant failed to adhere to financial discipline of the agreement executed between the parties and has been continuously committing default in EMI schedule. According to the OPs, the complainant signed loan cum hypothecation  cum guarantee agreement dated 30.03.2011. He was fully aware of the terms and conditions of the agreement. The total contract value of the loan was Rs.3,88,361/- , which was repayable in 47 installments of Rs.8263/- each. As per the record of the OPs, the amount of Rs.24,629/- was due against the installment and a sum of Rs.30,178/- was due against the complainant towards overdue interest as on 28.02.2017. It has been further pleaded that the complainant could not be treated as a consumer as the vehicle in question was purchased by him for commercial purpose and for earning profits. It has further been stated that despite the complainant having paid a sum of Rs.3230/- on 31.03.2015, the amount stated above was still due against the complainant. As the complainant has not cleared the loan, he could not be issued the no due certificate. The rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and in the end, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

3.                In evidence, the complainant submitted his affidavit Ex. CA along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C11 and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, the counsel for the OPs submitted affidavit Ex. RA of Ms. Sangeeta Gupta, Dy. Manager of OP company along with documents Ex. RW1/1 and Ex. RW2/A and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the counsel for the parties and have also gone through record very carefully.

6.                During the course of arguments, the counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant has paid all the 47 installments of Rs.8263/- each and despite that the NOC was not issued by the OPs. He has further contended that some of the installments were paid in cash through an agent of the OPs, which have not been accounted for in the account of the complaint nor any receipts were issued. The counsel for the complainant has further contended that the complainant has approximately paid a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- to the OPs, but despite that they are showing the outstanding amount against him.

7.                On the other hand, the counsel for the OPs has argued that as per the statement of account Ex. RW1/A, a sum of Rs.24,629/- was outstanding on account of installments and a sum of Rs.30,178.50 was outstanding as net overdue interest as on 28.02.2017. Therefore, it cannot be said that the complainant had paid all the installments.

8.                We have weighed the rival contentions of the counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record very carefully.

9.                A perusal of Ex. RW1/A reveals that a sum of Rs.54,807.50 was outstanding against the complainant. It has been claimed by the counsel for the complainant that some of the installments were paid in cash against which no receipt was issued by the officials of the OPs, but this argument is not tenable. Without the receipt, no payment can be said to have been made. Moreover, in the entire complaint, there is no such allegation that the complainant made some payments, which were not accounted for. In these circumstances, in our considered opinion, the complainant has failed to prove that he has repaid the entire payment of principle as well as interest. In these circumstances, it cannot be said to be a case of deficiency of service on the part of the OPs if they have not issued the NOC.

10.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

11.              Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within the statutory period.

 

                     (Jyotsna Thatai)                                     (K.K. Kareer)

            Member                                                  President

 

Announced in Open Commission

Dated:27.08.2021

Gobind Ram.