<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 28.01.2009<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 21st FEBRUARY 2009<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.245/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri.P.S.Umamahesh,S/o Late Sri.P.Sampangi Raju,Aged about 47 years,No.1747, “Mahashakthi Krupa”Chinnappa Layout,Kammanahalli Main Road,Bangalore – 560043.Advocate – Sri.Ravindra H.TV/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTY The Manager,ABN-AMRO Bank,Prestige Towers, Ground Floor,99 & 100, Residency Road,Bangalore – 560025.<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to issue NOC and pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- and for such other relief’s on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> Complainant availed Auto Car loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from OP on 01.10.2003 repayable in 5 years commencing from October 2003. Complainant has discharged entire loan amount in the month of September 2008 itself. OP has accepted the said last payment but thereafter failed to issue the NOC. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant went in futile. On the other hand OP came up with the false claim that complainant is due of Rs.10,902/- with regard to credit card transaction issued by the OP. The claim of the OP is unjust, improper, illegal and arbitrary. The credit card transaction has nothing to do with the Auto Car loan availed by the complainant. For no fault of his, complainant is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Thus complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 2. On admission and registration of the complaint, notices were sent to the OP. Though OP is duly served with the notice remained absent without any sufficient reason or cause. The absence of the OP does not appear to be as bona fide and reasonable. Hence OP is placed Ex-parte.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP didn’t participate in the proceedings. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. It is the case of the complainant that he availed the Auto Car loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from OP on 01.10.2003 repayable in five years. He promptly discharged the entire loan in the month of September 2008. The documents issued by the OP clearly goes to show that there is no out standing dues of any amount with respect to the said loan and that loan account is closed. Then complainant requested the OP to issue NOC, but it failed to do so. Hence he caused legal notice on 26.11.2008. Copy of the legal notice, Bank statement are produced. There was no response from the OP. Hence complainant felt deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 5. The evidence of the complainant appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard his sworn testimony. It is a quality of evidence that is more important than that of the quantity. The non participation of the OP even after due service of notice leads us to draw an inference that OP admits all the allegations made by the complainant. On insistence OP gave reply to his legal notice dated 06.12.2008. The said reply is produced. Para.1 in the reply it is stated, “It is to hereby note that there is no outstanding on your Auto Loan account”. That means to say complainant has promptly repaid the Auto car loan account. When that is so, what prevented OP to issue NOC is not known.<br /> <br /> 6. Of course the said replay further discloses that complainant has availed some credit card facilities from OP and towards the said credit card transactions complainant is in due of certain amount to the OP. If the complainant is in due of certain amount of Rs.10,902/- with regard to the credit card transactions, OP can legally proceed against complainant for the recovery of the said amount. In our considered view credit card transactions has nothing to do with the Auto car loan obtained by the complainant, which is the subject matter of this complaint. So the untenable objections raised by the OP contending that complainant is a defaulter hence he is not entitled for NOC rather speaks loudly about the deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 7. The approach of the OP is not fair and honest. Due to the said hostile attitude of the OP, complainant must have naturally suffered both mental agony and financial loss. We are satisfied that it is a fit case wherein a direction be given to OP to issue NOC. As for as claim of Rs.50,000/- compensation is concerned there is no substantial proof. Having taken note of the facts and circumstances of the case in our view the justice will be met by directing the OP to pay a compensation of Rs.3,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.500/-. With these reasons we proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to issue NOC as prayed for the complainant with respect to the said Auto Car loan and pay a compensation of Rs.3,000/- along with a litigation cost of Rs.500/-. This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 21st day of February 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Vln* <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />