State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Gian Chand vs Tata Finance Limited on 7 May, 2012
BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SOLAN, H
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA.
First Appeal No.278/2010
Date of Decision: 07.05.2012
Shri Gian Chand Walia son of Shri Hira
Lal Walia, R/o Village and Post Office Gahlian, Tehsil and District Kangra,
H.P.
.. Appellant
Versus
1. Tata
Finance Limited, Bezzola Complex, 1st Floor, Sion-Trombay Road,
Chembur, Mumbai-400 071, through its Managing Director.
2. Kotak Mahindra Prime Limited, SCO 61-62-63,
Sector 9-D, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director.
3. Tata Finance Limited, through its Manager,
Shri Sunil Kumar, SK & Company, Nagrota Bagwan, Tehsil and District Kangra,
H.P.
Respondents
Coram
Honble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, President
Honble Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Member
Honble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member
Whether approved for reporting?[1]
For the Appellant: Mr. Hoshiar Kaushal, Advocate vice
Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate
For
the Respondent No.1: Ms. Shilpa Sood, Advocate
For
the Respondents No.2 & 3: Ex-parte.
O R D E R:
Justice Surjit Singh, President (Oral) Appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 03.06.2010 of Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kangra, at Dharamshala, whereby, though his complaint, seeking issuance of a direction to the respondents for issue of no objection certificate, has been allowed, yet the order is conditional, the condition being that said certificate will be issued only after the complainant pays the amount due from him to the opposite parties, on account of loan taken by him from the said respondents for purchase of the vehicle, in respect of which no objection certificate is sought.
2. Complainant purchased a Tata Bus, by raising a loan of `4,19,251/- from the respondents. The loan amount included `18,000/- on account of insurance premium. Respondents, however, did not pay any insurance premium and it was the complainant himself, who had been getting the vehicle insured from time to time. Loan amount was to be repaid in equated monthly instalments of `14,550/-.
Complainant alleged that he had paid all the instalments on time, but the respondents after liquidation of entire liability, did not issue no objection certificate, enabling him to have registered the vehicle, in his own name, despite repeated requests.
3. Only one of the respondents, i.e. respondent No.1 put in appearance before Learned District Forum and filed reply, in which it was stated that amount of premium had been charged not for any one particular year, but for the entire period during which the loan was to be repaid, by the appellant-complainant. It was stated that a number of instalments had been paid after the due date, for which appellant was liable to pay extra interest. According to respondent No.1, a sum of `13,280/- was due from the complainant on account of arrears of instalments and `23,755/- towards compensation for delayed payment of instalments. Learned District Forum concluded that some amount of money was due to the respondents and ordered that the respondents shall issue no objection certificate in favour of the complainant, on his paying the amount due.
4. Learned District Forum has not indicated in its order, as to what amount of money was actually due, from the appellant to the respondents nor is there any material available on record on the basis of which the amount due may be determined. This as a matter of fact, is a case of settlement of accounts, in which the right Forum is not the Consumer Disputes Fora, but a Civil Court.
5. Consequently, we set aside the impugned order and dismiss the complaint, with liberty reserved to the complainant, to approach a Civil Court.
Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
6. One copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Chander Shekhar Sharma) Member (Prem Chauhan) Member May 07, 2012.
*dinesh* [1] Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?