Non-issue of NOC by the financer and re-financing the same without consent of vehicle buyer is defeciency in service

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMERS DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (V)
(North West District)
CSC-Block, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi-110088.

Case No.1504/2009

Sh. Bhola Nath
S/o Sh. Barkat Ram
E-113, Gandhi Vihar,
Delhi
……….Complainant

Versus

1. M/s Walton Finance Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Director,
LD-25, Pitam Pura,
Delhi-110088
2. M/s Ambay Auto Deals
Through its Director,
H-3/168, Sector-16,
Rohini,
Delhi ……….Opposite Parties

Coram: SHRI RAKESH KAPOOR, PRESIDENT
DR.PREM LATA, MEMBER

ORDER
DR. PREM LATA, MEMBER

The complainant desired to purchase a three vehicle for his self-livelihood. He approached to OP No.1 for financing an amount of Rs.80,000/-. As per the advice of OP No.1, he contacted his office where he found another proprietor also present and it was suggested by OP NO.1 that the finance shall be provided by other proprietor to the tune of Rs.80,000/-. However it was instructed to complainant that hypothecation of RC and permit in question will be endorsed by OP No.1 itself. Accordingly, the vehicle bearing registration No.DL-1R-K-6414was got financed through OP No.1 and 2 to the tune of Rs.80,000/- by fixing EMI for amount of Rs.4,335/- in 24 monthly instalments. The hypothecation on RC and permit of vehicle in question was endorsed by OP No.1 and it was assured that at the time of full and final settlement, the ownership of the vehicle in question will be transferred in the name of the complainant. Complainant paid 19 instalments from 23.01.2008 till 23.06.2009, amount totaling to Rs.82,365/-. Payment schedule is made as under :-
Sl. No. Cheque No. Amount (Rs.) Date
1 147886 4335.00 23.01.2008
2 147887 4335.00 25.02.2008
3 147888 4335.00 25.03.2008
4 147889 4335.00 25.04.2008
5 147890 4335.00 28.05.2008
6 147891 4335.00 24.06.2008
7 147892 4335.00 28.07.2008
8 147893 4335.00 23.08.2008
9 147894 4335.00 26.09.2008
10 147895 4335.00 25.10.2008
11 Cash 4335.00 03.12.2008
12 147896 4335.00 06.12.2008
13 147897 4335.00 27.12.2008
14 237502 4335.00 27.01.2009
15 237504 4335.00 24.04.2009
16 237503 4335.00 24.04.2009
17 237505 4335.00 24.04.2009
18 237506 4335.00 19.06.2009
19 237507 4335.00 23.06.2009
Total 82365.00

In the month of July, 2009 when complainant went to OP No.2 to make the payment of 20th EMI, the office of OP No.2 was already closed. Complainant’s made all possible efforts to search out the new official address of OP No.2 but could not find the same. He contacted OP No.1 and it was revealed by the office bearer/Director OP No.1 that hypothecation of RC and permit of the vehicle in question is of OP No.1 and therefore OP No.1 is authorized to settle all the disputes in respect of the payment receipt issued by OP No.2. It was a shocking story for complainant and in the meanwhile office bearer of OP No.1 made threatening to complainant to seize the vehicle forcibly. Complainant went to the office of OP No.1 with his father and two other persons of the society and requested OP No.1 to issue the receipt of remaining amount of 5 instalments in lump sum and provide NOC in respect of the vehicle in question. OP No.1 seized forcibly the vehicle of the father of the complainant bearing registration No.DL-1R-K-6816 and the vehicle pertaining to complainant which is in dispute bearing registration No.DL-1R-K-6414 was refinanced for an amount of Rs.9,335/- per month to be paid in 24 monthly instalments. At this stage, he forcibly on knifepoint got about 20 signatures on blank papers from the complainant. The matter was reported to the police and other authorities by the complainant at Saraswati Vihar Police Station but they refused to lodge the complaint. On 10.10.2009, complaint went to the higher police officers and requested to take proper action against the OP No.1. Complainant comes before this Forum to direct OPs to provide HP Clearance Certificate and final settlement of permit holder file along with issue of NOC in respect of vehicle bearing registration No.DL-1R-K-6414 after payment of 5 remaining instalments of Rs.4335/-.
OPs appeared before this forum after receiving the notice and filed an application raising preliminary objection that the vehicle in dispute was purchased for commercial purposes and hence complainant is not a consumer. There was no reply on merits on the allegations leveled by the complainant. Complainant filed reply to this application and made it clear that the vehicle was purchased purely for livelihood and self employment and not for commercial purposes. He has enclosed number of judgments in support of his version. OP again made a statement dated 16.04.2012 before this forum that arbitration order has been passed in this case. On the very day, Forum had directed OPs to file all relevant cases/awards if any passed by the courts or arbitration tribunal with a petition and relief sought. The matter was adjourned for 05.07.2012. Both the parties appeared before the Forum on 05.07.2012 and stated that the matter is under settlement. It was further listed for 6.8.2012. None appeared for OPs on 6.8.2012 but complainant was present. One more adjournment was given for settlement and the matter was again listed on 25.10.2012. On the next date 10.12.2012 also none appeared for OP, complainant filed his own affidavit on oath along with copies of some orders from the court of ADJ-III, Rohini Courts which were against arbitration petition filed by the OPs before the court. Complainant argued his matter is reserved for order.
We have carefully gone through the documents placed on record and also observed day-to-day proceedings and the behavior of the OPs. OPs have not filed any w/s or has said anything on the point of merits before this forum at any stage in spite of the fact that they appeared before the court. OP also informed the court that was some arbitration proceedings are going on in the same matter. OP was directed to submit such orders or proceeding but no documents as directed by the forum had been filed by the OPs, instead, an adjournment is asked for settlement of the case which was officially not settled at all. None appeared for OPs on the last stage also which creates suspicion and indicates malafide intention of OPs. On the other hand, complainant through his affidavit reveals that an arbitration application was actually filed by the OP before the Court at Rohini praying for direction for appointment of arbitrator in the dispute between the complainant but OPs after filing the case before civil court, never appeared before the court and it was dismissed in default after some adjournment waiting for his appearance. Copies of these orders from the civil court have been filed before this forum by the complainant. This clearly shows that OPs have avoided to reply to the allegations on merit everywhere and it was only a delaying tactics that he was either not appearing before the court where he himself had filed the case or not replying to the allegations put forth by the complainant before this forum. In the absence of any rebuttal from the OPs’ side , we have no hesitation to say that OPs had been dealing with complainant with malafide intention and was indulged in unfair trade practices under the fact and circumstances revealed by the complainant as stated above.
In view of the above discussion, we are of the firm opinion that OPs have indulged in unfair trade practices and is also deficient in providing proper services as a financier. Since during the proceedings, complainant had withdrawn complaint against OP No.2 and he was discharged from the array of parties, the entire liability lies on OP No.1 only. Hence we direct OP No.1 to provide HP Clearance Certificate and final settlement of permit holder file along with issue of NOC in respect of vehicle bearing registration No.DL-1R-K-6414 after payment of 5 remaining instalments of Rs.4335/-. Since complainant had never refused to pay these instalments at the stage when he was to pay the instalments, there is no order for interest to be paid by the complainant to OP No.1 on these five instalments. OP No.1 is directed to compensate the complainant for the harassment he has undergone in the due process to the tune of Rs.50,000/- and also cost of litigation of Rs.5,000/-.
If OP fails to comply with the order within 30 days, the complainant may approach this Forum u/s 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Announced on…………………….

(PREM LATA) (RAKESH KAPOOR)
MEMBER PRESIDENT

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
Non-issue of NOC by the financer and re-financing the same without consent of vehicle buyer is defeciency in service , 10.0 out of 10 based on 1 rating
Consumerism

Comments are closed.