DIST.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KHURDA, BHUBANESWAR:

                                                -ooOoo-

C.D.CASE NO. 205/2019

Mandakini Behera,  aged about 33 years,

W/o- Radhanath Behera, At/PO- Inchudi, PS/ Dist – Balasore,

At Present – C/o Debendra nath Palai, At – Ramachandrapur Bazaar,

Jatni, PO/PS- Jatni, Dist – Khurda                     

….     Complainant

-Vrs.-

1. Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd.,

Creative Plaza,3^rd Floor,Rasulgarh Square,

Near Tarini Temple, Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar – 751010

Dist – Khurda, Through its Regional Manager/ State Head.

2. Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd.,

At – 1 Sardar Patel Road, 6^th Floor, West Wing, Guindy,

Chennai – 600032, through Its Managing Director.

….     Opp. Parties  

For the complainant      :         Sri K.C.Prusty  & Others (Adv.)

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

DATE OF FILING         :         16/07/2019

DATE OF ORDER        :         15/03/2023

ORDER

SMT. S. TRIPATHY, MEMBER

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

2.       The complainant’s case in brief is that, she had AVAILED A LOAN OF Rs.5,00,000/- from the OP.1 in order to purchase a Bolero Pick Up vehicle. The registration number of the said vehicle was OD-02-AB-7029. As claimed by the complainant,  she had repaid the entire loan amount but still then, repossessing agent of the OPs has been harassing her to repossess the vehicle. Although, the complainant has repaid the entire loan amount, No Objection Certificate (NOC in short) has not been issued by the OP.1.  Hence this complaint.

3.       On the other hand,  the OPs were deprived of filing of written version but they had participated in the hearing.

4        Perused the materials on record.   It is an admitted fact that,  the complainant had incurred  loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from the OP.1 in order to purchase  a Bolero Pick Up vehicle. Annexure – 4 & 5 indicate that, she has no dues against the loan incurred by her. In the circumstances, the OP.1 should have issued NOC to the complainant. But the OP.1 did not do so. It appears that, the complaint bears merit.  Hence it is ordered.

ORDER

The complaint is  allowed on contest against the OPs.  The OPs are  hereby directed to issue NOC in favour of the complainant in respect of the vehicle bearing registration number OD-02-AB-7029. The OPs are  further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/-   (Rupees five thousand) only towards mental agony suffered by the complainant and a further sum of Rs.2000/-  (Rupees two thousand) only towards litigation expenses.  The order be complied with by the OPs jointly & severally   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  15^th March,  2023  under the seal & signature of the President and Member (W) of the Commission.

                                                                            (S.TRIPATHY)

                                                                               MEMBER(W) 

Dictated & corrected by me

           Member ( W) 

                                                                             I agree

                                                                                                                                                 President   

                                                                             (K.C.RATH)

Transcribed by Smt.M.Kanungo, Sr.Steno :