Date of filing:- 18/08/2017.
Date of Order:-11/05/2018.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (COURT)
B A R G A R H.
Consumer Complaint No. 39 of 2017.
Purnima Meher, aged about 45(forty five)years Wife of Late Kshetra Meher, R/o-Govindpali, P.o/P.s/Dist/-Bargarh. ..... ..... ...... Complainant.
-:V e r s u s:-
The Branch Manager, Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd., Sambalpur, At-Near L.I.C. Office, Budharaja, P.O. Budharaja, Ps/Dist- Sambalpur.
Chaturbhuja Sahu, aged about 35(thirty five) years, Location Manager, Bargarh, Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd., Super Market Complex, Bargarh At- Bandutikra Chowk, (in front of old fire Station ), Po/Ps/Dist-Bargarh ..... .....Opposite Parties.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant :- Sri M. K. Ratha, Advocate with other Advocates.
For the Opposite Party No.1(one):- Ex-parte.
For the Opposite Party No.2(two):- Sri G.C.Sarangi, Advocate.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Ajanta Subhadarsinee ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r (W).
Dt.11/05/2018. -: J U D G E M E N T:-
Presented by Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra, President:-
Brief facts of the case :-
In Brief the case of the Complainant, being persuaded by the Opposite Party No.2(two), she purchased one Piaggo Auto Riksaw in the year 2013 to earn her livelihood being financed by the Opposite Party No.1(one) with the active mediation of the Opposite Party No.2(two) with him for finance, as he was working as the Location Manager of the Opposite Party No.1(one) having his office at Bargarh in the address mentioned in the cause title of the Complaint.
The said vehicle was registered vide Regd No-OD-17-A-7801 in the office of R.T.A Bargarh, having being entered upon an agreement with the Opposite Party No.1(one) regarding the terms and conditions of the repayments of the said loan to the Opposite Party No.1(one), And as per the agreement the Complainant was to repay the same loan in 35(thirty five) numbers of installment, And out of these 35(thirty five) installment the Complainant would repay 20(twenty) installment @ Rs.6,852/-(Rupees six thousand eight hundred fifty two) only per month and would repay the rest 15(fifteen) installment @ Rs.6,302/-(Rupees six thousand three hundred two)only per month. And it is pertinent to mention here that in the said process the Opposite Party No.2(two) had an active participation on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1(one).
Accordingly the Complainant repaid the first installment on Dt.07.09.20011 for the stipulated amount of Rs.6,852/-(Rupees six thousand eight hundred fifty two)only and continued the repayments as per the said terms and conditions as envisaged in the said agreement till the Dt.29.06.2016 and in the process repaid all the loan amount without any default or delay hence there is no any outstanding due amount against her.
So as per the terms and condition after the repayments of the entire amount of the said loan the Opposite Party No.1(one) is supposed to issue her with a No Objection Certificate in favor of the Complainant so that she could file the same before the R.T.A, Bargarh to make necessary entry in the registration certificate declaring her as the absolute owner of the said Vehicle. But the same has not yet been issued with her even after several request have been made on her behalf but to no response from the side of the Opposite Party, so seeing no other alternative the Complainant served the Opposite Party with a pleader Notice through her Advocate on Dt.05.07.2017 through registered post with A.D. but still to no action which amounts to deficiencies of service on the part of the Opposite Party for his such acts the Complainant has suffered a lot mentally, physically, & monetarily too. Hence the Complainant preferred to file the case claiming the Dt.19.06.2016 as cause of action when she repaid the last installment of the said loan and on Dt.05.07.2017 when she served him with the Pleader Notice relying on the following documents.
Xerox copy of the Registration Cetificate of the Auto Rikshaw vide Regd No-OD-17-A-7801.
Xerox Copy of the State of Account of Complainant issued by the Union Bank of India Bargarh Branch.
Xerox Copy of the state of Account issued by the Opposite Party No.1(one) regarding repayment of Loan.
Office copy of the Pleader Notice Dt.05.07.2917 with postal receipt.
Original Acknowledgment due (A.D.).
And on the basis of the same the Complainant has prayed before the Forum to issue with direction to the Opposite Party to issue the N.O.C. with regard to the said vehicle in her favor and also to direct him to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)only towards the Compensation against the mental, physical and financial harassment undergone by her by such deficient action of the Opposite Party.
Perused the Complaint, it’s supporting documents and on hearing her Advocate the case was found to be a genuine one hence admitted and notice was served on the Opposite Parties And on being served with Notice the Opposite Party No.2(two) appeared and has filed his version but the Opposite Party No.1(one) did not bother to appear as such has been set ex-party.
So far the averment made by the Opposite Party No.2(two), he has partly admitted to the case of the Complainant that he was working with the Opposite Party No.1(one) as a Location Manager from Dt.15.05.2015 to Dt.17.01.2017 but not at the time of the loan was sanctioned and disbursed to the Complainant, but at the same time has admitted to have knowledge about the same transaction between them and also has admitted the repayments part of the loan by the Complainant with certain deviation but at the same time also he has admitted the fact that she has already repaid the entire amount of loan to the Opposite Party No.1(one) and the Opposite Party No.1(one) should have issued her with the N.O.C to enable her to get it transferred in her favor in the certificate of registration of the vehicle in the office of the R.T.A., Bargarh.
In furtherance to his averments he has denied to have any negligence on his part with regard to the said transaction and the cause of action of the case against, so far deficiencies of service part is concerned and as such has claimed not being liable for any action for the fault of the Opposite Party No.1(one) and has further prayed before the Forum to dismiss the case against him.
But the Opposite Party since being the sole necessary party for the proper adjudication of the case was served with notice to appear before the Forum but even if the service of the notice was sufficiently served on him, he did not appear hence he was set ex-party and also did not participate at the time of hearing of the case, hence we preferred to hear the matter on merit of the case in his absence. And while delving deep in to the materials available in the record we felt that the case rest on the following issues for proper adjudication of the case .
Whether the opposite Parties are deficient in rendering service to the Complainant ?
Whether the Complainant is entitled to the claim as sought for by her ?
On perusal of the record it revealed from the material available in the record after the case being admitted against the Opposite Party service of summon was served on the Opposite Parties and on being noticed the Opposite Party No.2(two) appeared before the Forum and filed his version but the Opposite Party No.1(one) even if being the sole answering party of the case did not bother to appear or to file any version or to take part in the process of hearing of the case even if being sufficiently served with notice form the Forum, which shows his callousness with regard to the case for which we felt it proper to proceed with the case in presence of the Complainant and the Opposite Party No.2(two) and with materials available in the record.
And accordingly heard the matter advanced by the Complainant and the Opposite Party No.2(two), and on hearing the advocate for the Complainant and the advocate for the Opposite Party No.2(two) and on perusal of the complaint, the version of the Opposite Party and decided to withstand with the issues framed for the determination of the case.
Accordingly while dealing with the Issue No.1(one), with regard to the fact that whether the Opposite Parties are deficient in rendering service to the Complainant, from the materials available in the record it is clearly evident that the Complainant has purchased the said Auto Rickshaw being financed by the Opposite Party No.1(one) with the active participation of the Opposite Party No.2(two) which can be ascertained from the version filed by him that he has got knowledge of the loan being obtained by the Complainant from the Opposite Party No.1(one) for purchasing the said vehicle and also has admitted that she has also repaid the loan amount in his version it’self and also has admitted by him therein in his version that she should have been issued with the N.O.C. as the loan amount has already been cleared by the Complainant, And also the documents such as the statement of Account issued by the union Bank of India, Bargarh Branch filed by the Complainant, through which the amount of repayment of the said loan was transferred to the account of the Opposite Party No.1(one), from her account is evident to clearly establishes the case of the Complainant coupled with the version of the Opposite Party No.2(two). But on the contrary it reveals from the material available in the record the Opposite Party No.2(two) has performed his part of job towards the Complainant but the Opposite Party No.1(one) has intentionally played with the Complainant even if his entire amount of loan has been repaid by her and asked for the N.O.C. for which she is entitled to, and also Knowing very well that the said particular N.O.C. is very much necessary for her to produce the same before the R.T.A to get it transferred it to her name, has set over the same and has harassed her from all corner as has stated by her which amounts to serious commitment of deficiencies in rendering service towards her in furthermore the intentional absence of the Opposite Party No.1(one) before the Forum has strengthen the allegation of the Complainant and her claim as justified, hence in view of such circumstances we are of the view that the Opposite Party has not only proved to be deficient in giving service towards the Complainant but also his attitude of arrogance in non responding the notice of the Forum, proved his attitude of irresponsibility and disrespect to the law of the land as such in our consensus view the Opposite Party No.1(one) is very much deficient in rendering service towards the Complainant and also we are of the view that the Opposite Party No.2(two) has performed his part and found to be truthful towards his duty, as such accordingly it is answered in favor of the Complainant.
Secondly with regard to the issues relating to the entitlement of the claim of the Complainant is concerned, since we have already discussed in details of the case in our foregoing paragraphs and have already opined against the Opposite Party No.1(one), it is obvious upon us to express our view in the particular issue in favor of the Complainant. Hence our order follows.
O R D E R.
Hence the Opposite Party No.1(one) is directed to supply with the N.O.C to the Complainant against the Loan amount vide the account No.365302010015/03 against the Concerned Auto Rickshaw vide registration No-OD-17-A-7801, within thirty days from the date of receipt of the Order and also directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only as compensation towards the mental, physical and financial harassment caused to her and towards the cost of litigation, And default the same the said amount would carry an interest @ 9 %(nine percent) per annum from the date of filing of the case till the actual realization of the amount and in default in supplying the said N.O.C. the Opposite Party No.1(one) would be liable to the punitive measure in accordance of the Law .
The above Order is pronounced to-day i.e.on Dt.11.05.2018 in the Open Forum, in the result the Complaint is allowed against the Opposite Party No.1(one) and the Opposite Party No.2(two) is exonerated from all liability, as such the case is disposed off.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
(Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra)
P r e s i d e n t
I agree
(Ajanta Subhadarsinee)
M e m b e r (w)
