HARYANA FINANCIAL CORPORATION vs SUNIL KUMAR BANSAL

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Haryana State Finance Corporation against the order of State Commission who had dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner.

BRIEFLY the facts of this case are that the respondent had obtained a loan of Rs. 3,93,000/- in July, 1990 from the petitioner for purchase of a truck - out of which Rs. 3,16,800/- was released for purchase of chassis of a Turbo Telco Truck, the balance amount of Rs. 76,200/- was to be released after the body is built on the chassis. The respondent had a National Permit valid for 10.9.1990 to 9.9.1995. However, it was found that as per Certificate issued by R.T.A. the authorisation was valid upto 1.4.1993. When the respondent approached R.T.A. for renewal/extension of authorisation, it was refused by R.T.A. based on a letter from the petitioner addressed to them not to extend the life of the permit as the respondent has not been paying the instalments due to the petitioner. This has resulted in the truck not plying and loss of Rs. 40,000/- p.m. to the respondent. It is in these circumstances that the respondent/complainant approached the District Forum for compensation of Rs. 3,40,000/- as both the petitioner and R.T.A. have caused irreparable loss to the respondent/complainant. After hearing the petitioner the District Forum allowed the complaint and ordered waiving of the payment of monthly instalments amount from October, 1993 to April, 1994 (till the date of filing the complaint) and also awarding the same amount as compensation and also directing the respondent to move R.T.A. for getting National Permit who will deal with it as per rules. Petitioner filed an appeal against this order, which was also dismissed, hence the revision petition. It was argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that it was the respondent who had defaulted in payment of instalments due to them and it is in these circumstances they had informed the R.T.A. of the facts of the case. Question of jurisdiction has also been raised by the petitioner, as they are rendering no service covered by C.P.A., 1986. The complainant has not come with clean hands as he has not disclosed that he was a defaulter leaving little choice with them except to approach R.T.A. for non-renewal of the licence; there is a prescribed procedure, under which No Objection Certificate (N.O.C.) has to be issued by the ''financier'' in favour of the defaulter respondent. It is in these circumstances that the permit was not renewed. There is no proof on record to show the loss of Rs. 40,000/- p.m. being sustained by the respondent. Had the State Commission considered all these aspects of the case, they would have come to a different conclusion. It has erred in passing the order it did hence need to be set aside. All these points were contested by the learned Counsel for the respondent. According to him all these points have been gone into by the District Forum who passed a reasoned order and in appeal also all these points were looked into by the State Commission. There is no merit in the revision petition, hence need to be dismissed.

We see from perusal of record and the reasoned order of the District Forum upheld by the State Commission in appeal, that all these points were agitated by the petitioner but lost. There is a concurrent finding on points of fact. However, on inquiry the learned Counsel for the petitioner could not satisfy us as to under what provision of law with the petitioner Corporation, did they write to R.T.A. not to renew the licence. Law and Rules permit them not to issue N.O.C. in case of default, but nothing in law or rules permits them to take up the matter with R.T.A. not to renew the permit thus, killing the very hen whose same eggs would have come them to satisfy their dues. We find this type of functioning by a promotional/financing agency like HSFC very unsatisfactory. If the dues were not coming, what prevented them to attach/repossess the truck under the provisions of their Act ? Now a point has also been raised about jurisdiction. Advancing loan has been held to be very much a service within the definition of service under Section 2(o) of CPA, 1986. We see no merit in the argument. We are in full agreement with the findings of both the lower Fora that petitioner''s writing to R.T.A. not to renew the licences which is not based on any law/rules/instructions, definitely induced the R.T.A. not to renew the permit resulting in non-plying of the truck and consequential losses. In this regard instructions of Transport Commissioner dated 25.4.1991 relied upon by the petitioner has also been rebutted by the Law Officer of R.T.A. who stated before the District Forum that now a financier is not competent or entitled to request R.T.A. not to register, evaluate or extend National Permit period, etc. of a ''financed'' vehicle. This nails the case of the petitioner. We find no merit in the revision petition and is dismissed with costs of Rs. 2,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent. Revision Petition dismissed.