STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.

Date of institution : 12.07.2022 Reserved on : 08.01.2026 Date of Decision : 20.01.2026 Indusind Bank, Loan Branch, Office, Mattiwali Building, Old Gaushala Road, Mansa, Distt. Mansa through its Branch Manager.

….Appellant/Opposite Party Versus Rajinder Singh, son of Rajinder Singh, R/o near Overbridge, Boha Road, Ward No.15, Budhlada, District Mansa.

….…Respondent/Complainant First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 23.05.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Mansa in CC No.52 of 2019.

Quorum:-

Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President Ms. Simarjot Kaur, Member Mr. Vishav Kant Garg, Member

1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No

2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No

3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest?

Yes/No Present:-

For the appellant : Sh.Parminder Singh, Advocate (through VC)

For the respondent : None SIMARJOT KAUR, MEMBER :

The Appellant/Opposite Party i.e. Indusind Bank, has filed the present Appeal before this Commission to challenge the impugned order dated 23.05.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mansa (in short, “the District Commission”), whereby the Complaint filed by the Complainant had been partly allowed

2. It would be apposite to mention here that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as were arrayed before the District Commission.

3. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out by the Complainant in the Complaint filed before the District Commission are that the Complainant had purchased a truck bearing No.PB31H-0337. He had got it financed after obtaining the loan from the OP. The Complainant had repaid/deposited the loan amount of Rs.7,77,261/- with interest through installments. After repayment of total loan amount, the Complainant had requested the OP to issue ‘Clearance Certificate’. OP had told him to come after some days. After a week, the Complainant again went to the office of OP for ‘Clearance Certificate’. Again it started making excuses and he was told to come later on. It was alleged that the Complainant wanted to get the hypothecation cancelled from his RC of the truck. On the asking of the Complainant, the OP had provided the statement of loan account to him. The status of loan account was reflected as ‘closed’ and outstanding loan amount was shown as Rs.0.00. However, the OP had informed him that the Complainant was a guarantor in another loan account No.PBM00319D (Ex.OP-3). Till date, the said loan amount had neither been repaid by its Principal Borrower nor by the Complainant who had acted as a guarantor. The OP had further informed him that it could exercise lien qua the Complainant over the hypothecated property as per Clause 20 of the loan Agreement No.PBM00319D. Hence the Complaint was filed by the Complainant with the prayer to issue directions to the OP to issue the clearance certificate and to pay an amount of Rs.40,000/- as compensation for causing mental, physical harassment. Further the OP be directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses. .

4. Upon issuance of notice, the OP had appeared and filed its written version by raising certain preliminary objections. It was alleged that the Complainant was not a ‘Consumer’ and the Complaint was not maintainable. The Complaint was false, forged and fabricated. There was no ‘deficiency in service’ on the part of the OP. The District Commission had no jurisdiction, no locus standi and cause of action to entertain/decide the Complaint. It was submitted that the parties were bound to refer all their disputes/differences/claims pertaining to the loan Agreement to the Arbitrator in accordance with the provisions contained in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The venue of arbitration proceeding was to be at Chennai as per Clause 23.3 of loan agreement.

5. On merits, the OP had reite