Back
2011(1) CPR 243
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
S.N. Aggarwal, President and Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member
Magma Fincorp Ltd. & Anr. —Appellants
versus
Sukhwinder Singh —Respondent
First Appeal No. 1981 of 2010
Decided on 10.12.2010
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Sh. Rishi Kaushal, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Financier is bound to issue no dues certificate after re-payment of loan amount.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15 and 17—Financial service—No dues certificate not issued by appellants even after deposit of all installments by respondent towards car loan—Complaint allowed by District Forum with compensation of Rs. 10,000 and cost of Rs. 5,000/—Appellants have not placed any document to prove if appellants served any legal notice on respondent for installment which was allegedly outstanding against him either against first loan and which was not paid by him nor any notice was served by appellants on respondent as to which cheque had bounced—Moreover, other plea taken by appellants in written statement was that there was a delay in payment of instalments but bouncing of cheques or non payment of insurance cheques was not version of appellants in written statement—Appellants have taken plea of delay in making payment of instalments only as an arm twisting tactics—Both loans stand repaid by respondent to appellants and appellants have falsely taken plea that there was delay in making payment of instalments—Appeal dismissed. (Paras 4, 6, 11, 12, 13, 17, 18 & 19)
M.A. for condonation of delay
S.N. Aggarwal, President—This appeal was filed with delay of 14 days. An application for condonation of delay has also been filed in which reasons have been given which caused the delay in filing the appeal. The application is supported by an affidavit. We have condoned the delay without issuing notice to the other party for the view we are taking in the main case.
Main case
2. The version of Sukhwinder Singh respondent was that he had purchased a new Maruti 800CC car bearing registration No. PB23C7017. It was financed by the appellants for an amount of Rs. 1,50,000. Thereafter, the respondent sold this Maruti car and purchased a new Maruti Zen car bearing registration No. PB23-D-36/4. It was also financed by the appellants for an amount of Rs. 2,35,000. After the respondent deposited all the instalments against both the loans, he applied for no due certificate but it was not issued by the appellants. Hence, the complaint.
3. In the written reply filed by the appellants, it was admitted that the respondent had taken the loan of Rs.1,50,000 for the purchase of Maruti 800CC car and thereafter, he had taken another loan of Rs.2,35,000 for purchasing Maruti Zen Car.
4. It was, however, pleaded that the instalments were not paid by the respondent as per the schedule. There was peak delay towards the first loan of 690 days and the average delay was 56.85 days. An amount of Rs.51,400 was still outstanding against the first loan. So far as the second loan was concerned, there was a peak delay of 2/6 days and the average delay was 35.67 days and a sum of Rs.39,529 was still outstanding against that loan. Hence, it was prayed that the no due certificate could not be issued by the appellants. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
5. Parties produced the affidavits/documents in support of their respective versions.
6. The learned District forum accepted the complaint with costs of Rs. 5,000 vide impugned order dated 14.9.2010. The appellants were directed to issue No Objection Certificate/No Due Certificate and they were also directed to make the payment of Rs.10,000, compensation to the respondent for mental tension and harassment.
7. Hence, this appeal.
8. At the time of argument, the statement of loan amount, paid amount and the outstanding amount was demanded from the appellants. It has been placed on record.
9. Based on this record, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants was that an amount of Rs.13,000 was outstanding against the first loan and Rs.62,180 was outstanding against the second loan. Hence, it was prayed that the appeal be accepted, impugned judgment dated 14.9.2010 be set aside and the respondent be directed to make the payment of the amount outstanding against him against both the loans.
10. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
11. Even as per the version of the appellants against the first loan of Rs. 1,50,000, the respondent has already made the payment of Rs.1,91,750 and against the second loan of Rs. 2,35,000, the respondent has made the payment of Rs.2,74,940 as per the revised calculations placed on the file by the appellants.
12. As per the revised version of the appellants, the EMI recoverable from the respondent for the first loan was Rs. 3,250 while the remaining amounts of Rs.13,000 were recoverable from the respondent only on the ground that 4 cheques of Rs. 3,250 each had bounced.
13. Similarly, the instalment due against the second loan was Rs. 4,660 while 3 cheques of Rs. 4,660 each and 4 cheques of insurance of Rs. 12,050 each had bounced against the second loan and, therefore, the total amount recoverable was Rs. 62,180.
14. As per the written reply filed in the District Forum, the amount of Rs.51,400 was outstanding against the first loan but as per the revised statement filed in this Commission, a sum of Rs.13,000 was outstanding against the first loan. Similarly, as per the plea taken by the appellants in the written statement, an amount of
