DIST.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KHURDA, BHUBANESWAR:

                                                -ooOoo-

C.D.CASE NO. 101/ 2018

Nabina Chandra Singh, aged  51 years,

S/o Late Kishre Chandra Singh, Shakti vihar,

Salia Sahi, RRL, Nayapalli,

Bhubaneswar, Khurda – 751012                         ….     Complainant

-Vrs.-

1. Manager, Consumer Finance Division,

Indusind Bank Ltd.,

1^st floor, Manorama Chambers, Cuttack – Puri Road,

Rasulgarh, PO/PS – Mancheswar,

2. Chiarman, Indusind Bank Ltd., Corporate Office, 701,

Solitaire Corporate Park, 167, Guru Hargovindji Marg,

Andheri East, Mumbai – 400093

Maharashtra.

3. Managing Director.

Indusind Bank Ltd., 2401, Gen. Thimmayya Road,

Cantonment, Pune – 411001,Maharashtra.

                                                                   ….     Opp. Parties        

For the complainant      :         Sri R.K.Das  & Associates  (Adv.)

For the O.Ps                           :         Sri A.B.Majhi & Associates  (Adv.)

DATE OF FILING         :         11/04/2018

DATE OF ORDER        :         27/09/2022

ORDER

K.C.RATH, PRESIDENT

1.       This is an application U/s 12 of the C.P.Act, 1986.

2.       The complainant’s case in brief is that, he had incurred a loan from the OP.1 to purchase an auto passenger D-35. He had repaid the entire loan along with interest to the OP.1. But the OP.1 did not issue NOC/NDC  to him. As it amounts to deficiency in service, he files this complaint.

3.       On the other hand,  the OPs filed the written version, challenging the maintainability of the complaint contending therein that as they have the right of  general lien and the complainant is a guarantor  in another loan, in exercise of right of general lien, they have stopped issuing the NOC/ NDC.  As the complainant bears no merit, it is liable to be dismissed with cost. 

4        Perused the materials on record.  No doubt, the banker has the right of general lien over the assets of borrower  which are in his possession.  In this case, the complainant had repaid the loan that he had incurred from the Bank and demanded NOC / NDC from them. The plea of the OP.1 that  in exercise of right of general lien , they have stopped the issuance of NOC/ NDC, is not tenable in the eye of law. NOC/ NDC  is not an asset which is in the possession of the OP, rather  it is a mere formality  to conclude a transaction. Therefore, the OP.1 is not justified in denying/ stopping  the issuance of NOC/ NDC in favour of the complainant.   As such, the complaint bears merit.  Hence it is ordered.

ORDER

The complaint is hereby allowed on contest against the OPs.  The OPs are hereby directed to issue NOC/ NDC in favour of the complainant in respect of the loan A/c bearing No. OCB02933G. The OPs are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/-   (Rupees one thousand) only towards mental agony suffered by the complainant and a further sum of Rs.1000/-  (Rupees one thousand) only towards litigation expenses.  The order be complied with by the OPs  within a period of  thirty days from the date of communication of this order,   failing which the complainant will be  at liberty to execute the order  against the OPs    in accordance with law.

The order is pronounced on this day the  27^th September,  2022  under the seal & signature of the President and Member (W)   of the Commission.

                                                                                      (K.C.RATH)    

                                                                                       PRESIDENT

 Dictated & corrected by me

          President                                                                                    

I agree                                                                            

(S.Tripathy)                                                                           

Member (W)                                                                             

Transcribed by Smt. M.Kanungo, Sr.Steno