VIJAY KUMAR SHARMA Vs. NORTHLAND LEASING LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vijay Kumar Sharma a resident of Panchkula approached the Northland Leasing Limited, respondent No. 1 and they assured and recommended a loan of Rs. 87,210/- for Maruti Van which the complainant required for earning his livelihood and for personal use as well. Besides this he invested a sum of Rs. 40,000/- from his own pocket. The loan of Rs. 87,210/- referred to above was granted by Citi Bank and it was disbursed to M/s. Northland Leasing Ltd. It was to be repaid in the form of instalments by the complainant. Though the respondents were expected to deliver the Maruti Van to complainant but they failed to do so and a notice was served on them on 16.4.92 because there was an increase in its price to the tune of Rs. 20,000/-. The complainant alleged that in order to meet his own requirement he was compelled to hire a Van and he suffered a loss in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-. He has prayed for payment of Rs. 50,000/- together with the delivery of the van on the rate prevalent on 22.3.91.

(2.) M/s. Northland Leasing filed a reply wherein it has been averred that they were in no way responsible to deliver the van or vehicle to the complainant. They had never given any assurance to the complainant regarding delivery of the vehicle or the equipment for which a loan is arranged or made available by them. They were merely representative of the lending bank.

(3.) The Citi Bank, respondent No. 2 filed a reply wherein it has been averred that they were outside the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant was granted a loan of Rs. 87,210/- for the purchase of Maruit Van and this loan was disbursed to Northland Leasing Ltd. on behalf of the complainant. The complainant was required to repay the loan in 36 monthly instalments of Rs. 4407/- each. The amount of loan was made available to respondent No. 1 for onward remittance to the motor car manufacturer. The amount in question was actually disbursed to respondent No. 1 according to the instructions of the complainant. The repayment of the loan was not dependent on the delivery of the vehicle. The liability of the an swering respondent ended the moment the loan was disbursed to respondent No. 1. According to the agreement of loan the bank was not responsible for delay in delivery of vehicle or any other consequence faced by the pursuer. The answering respondent has denied withdrawal of four cheques totalling Rs. 17,628/- without advancing any loan. It has further been averred that a sum of more than Rs. 1,20,000/- was still outstanding against the complainant and he has come to this Commission only to defeat the claim of respondent. There was no deficiency on his part.