LUXMI FINANCIAL SERVICES Vs. BHUPINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by M/s. Luxmi Financial Services - opposite party No. 2 is directed against the order dated 17.7.2009 passed by District Consumer Forum -I, U.T. Chandigarh whereby complaint bearing No. 1518 of 2008 filed by Bhupinder Singh, respondent No. 1/ complainant was allowed in the following terms:

(2.) THE parties hereinafter shallbe referred to as per their status before the District Consumer Forum.

(3.) IN nutshell, the facts as set out in the complaint are that in the month of December 2005, appellant/OP No. 2 approached the Complainant with a proposal of foreclosure of loan account/hypothecation of his vehicles i.e. Toyota Qualis bearing Regn. No. CH -03 -5984 hypothecated with Karnataka Bank, Phase 3B -II Mohali and Honda City bearing Regn. No. Punjab -65 -C -3916 hypothecated with Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. and further for getting loan on used vehicles from OP No. 1. In December 2005, he entered into loan agreements with OP No. 1 for his aforesaid vehicles through OP No. 2. Thereafter, OP No. 2 informed him that a loan of Rs. 8,22,000 was sanctioned for aforementioned used vehicles (i.e. Rs. 5,50,000 for Honda City and Rs. 2,72,000 for Toyota Qualis), with an assurance that the loan amount would be given as and when the same was disbursed by OP No. 1. Thereafter, OP No. 2 released the payment of Rs. 4,50,000 in total (i.e. Rs. 2,72,000 qua loan A/c of Toyota Qualis and Rs. 1,78,000 qua loan A/c of Honda City car) by way of three Cheques i.e. for Rs. 3.00 lacs, Rs.1.40 lacs and Rs. 10,000 respectively. It was told by OP No. 2 that the remaining amount of Rs.3.72 lacs had not been disbursed by OP No. 1 and the same would be released as soon as it was disbursed by OP No. 1. It was alleged that from the amount of loan released by OP No. 2, the Complainant got loan/hypothecation agreement qua one vehicle i.e. Toyota Qualis foreclosed from Karnataka Bank. But since the total amount of loan qua Honda City was not released, he was not able to get his loan/ hypothecation agreement foreclosed from M/s. Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd., due to which he had to pay the instalments to OP No. 1 @ Rs.12,665 per month on the total loan amount qua A/c of Honda City car (i.e. including the amount of Rs. 3.72 lacs which was not released by the OPs) as well as to M/s. Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. @ Rs. 10,900 per month for the same vehicle i.e. Honda City. He paid instalments to M/s. Kotak Mahindra Prime up to April 2006 and thereafter, got the hypothecation/loan agreement foreclosed by paying Rs. 3,70,500 to M/s. Kotak Mahindra Prime from his own pocket. Thereafter, he approached OP No. 2 number of times and asked for release of remaining amount i.e. Rs. 3.72 lacs and for the details of his loan accounts but no plausible justification was ever given by OP No. 2. Complainant then approached OP No. 1 in the month of April, 2007 and asked for the details of his loan accounts of both the vehicles. On receiving the account statements, he was surprised to know that the total amount of Rs.8.22 lacs on account of his loan agreements had already been disbursed to OP No. 2 but OP No.2 had released only Rs. 4.50 lacs and had intentionally and illegally retained the amount of Rs. 3.72 lacs. Complainant submitted a representation dated 5.5.2007 in writing to OP No. 1 upon which he received a telephonic call from the concerned official of OP No. 1 who asked the complainant to come present in office of OP No. 1. Thereafter, the Complainant visited the office of OP No. 1 along with the records