ORDER

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

This is an appeal by the complainant/appellant against the order dated 19.04.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gwalior (for short ‘District Commission) in C.C.No.778/2010 whereby the complaint filed by him has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case as stated by the complainant in his complaint are that he approached the opposite party no.3 at Gwalior for taking finance and had completed all the formalities. It is submitted that he had deposited 37 cheques and two registry of immovable property then the opposite party no.1 financed an amount of Rs.17,58,000/- and he had purchased a vehicle UP-93 E-8314. It is submitted that he paid Rs.17,18,000/- through instalments and on 23.10.2008 by depositing last instalment he demanded three cheques, two registry of immovable property and no dues certificate then it is informed that Rs.25,000/- are remaining then he paid Rs.25,000/- despite that the opposite parties did not provide him no dues certificate. He therefore filed a complaint before the District Commission alleging deficiency in service on part of opposite parties seeking return of three cheques, full & final settlement letter, compensation and costs.

3. The opposite parties-finance company resisted the complaint stating that the JCB machine was purchased for commercial purpose and therefore the District Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Since there is Arbitration Clause therefore, this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The complainant got finance facility from Bhopal office and there is no office of the opposite parties at Gwalior. Still there is dues of Rs.1,99,962/- against the complainant. The complainant did not deposit the cheques and registry of immovable property. Since there is no deficiency in service on part of opposite parties, therefore, the complaint be dismissed.

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

5. Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant argued that the District Commission did not consider the evidence produced on record more particularly the agreement of loan by which the opposite parties/respondents granted loan to the appellant and as per agreement the loan amount was to be repaid in 35 instalments and for that purpose the respondents had obtained 37 cheques from the appellant and towards security of loan amount the appellant provided the respondents two registry of immovable property. The District Commission erred in not allowing to the complaint on the ground that the cheques and registry deposited by the appellant is not proved. The District Commission erred in relying on the submissions of the respondents that there was due on the appellant and therefore the respondents have not committed any deficiency in service by not providing the NOC to the appellant. He therefore prayed this appeal be allowed and the respondents be directed to return the cheques and registry of immovable property to the appellant as also to provide NOC.

6. So far as the preliminary objections regarding maintainability of complaint before the District Commission as also challenging the jurisdiction of the District Commission in view of territorial jurisdiction and Arbitration Clause, the District Commission has rightly held that the District Commission has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as also the Arbitration Clause does not bar the jurisdiction of the District Commission.

7. It is an admitted fact that the appellant had obtained loan facility from the respondents. The appellant has filed his affidavit and documents C-1 to C-13. The appellant alleged that he paid the total loan amount with interest to the respondents but the respondents did not provide him No dues certificate as also not returned the cheques and registry of immovable property. On the other hand, the stand of the respondents is that