.
O R D E R
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):
Complainant approached this Forum for getting a relief from the Forum against the opposite parties.
2. The brief facts of this complaint is as follows. The complainant purchased a two wheeler from the first opposite party by availing loan from the 2nd opposite party on executing an hire purchase agreement. As per the terms and conditions of the hire purchase agreement the complainant had paid the entire loan amount by 05-05-2014. There after the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party several time for getting the NOC for canceling the CC endorsement from the RC Book of the complainant’s vehicle. But they have not issued the NOC by saying one or other reasons. Because of the above said act of the 2nd opposite party, the complainant is put to irreparable injury and sufferings. The above said act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service, which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant and opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same. Hence this complainant for an order directing the 2nd opposite party for issuing the NOC along with compensation of Rs.15,000/- and cost of Rs.5,000/-.
3. In this case the 1st opposite party is exparte.
4. The 2nd opposite party appeared before this forum and filed a version with the following main contentions. 2nd opposite party admitted the loan transactions and the closing of the loan account by the complainant on 12-05-2014. According to them, complainant never approached personally or submitted any application requesting for the issuance of the NOC. However the complainant contacted the opposite party for getting the NOC. At that time, Office staff reminded her for producing a copy of the RC Book which is highly essential for the issuance of the NOC. But the complainant failed to do so. At last, the second opposite party sent a registered letter on 30-08-2014 to the complainant demanding the copy of the RC Book. But the said letter was returned with endorsement “refused by the addressee”. When a vehicle is registered the original RC Book is directly sent by the RTO to the registered owner and not to the financial institution. As per the M.V. Act and Rules while issuing NOC the vehicle name and the registration No. should be clearly affixed on it. In spite of the repeated demands for the copy of the RC Book, complainant failed to produce it. If the complainant complied the directions of the 2nd opposite party, the NOC would have been issued and the 2nd opposite party is also ready and willing to issue the NOC if the complainant submits the copy of the RC Book. Therefore 2nd opposite party has not committed any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant. With the above contentions, 2nd opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost as they have not committed any deficiency in service.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
6. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Ext.A1 and A2. After closure of evidence, both parties were heard.
7. The point:- The complainant’s case is that she had purchased a two wheeler from the 1st opposite party by availing loan from the 2nd opposite party on executing an hire purchase agreement. The entire loan installments are paid by the complainant with out any default before the loan period. All the payments are paid through her bank account with Allahabad Bank, Pathanamthitta. There after she approached 2nd opposite party several time for getting the NOC. She had also given the copy of the RC Book as demanded by the 2nd opposite party. Even after, this opposite parties failed to issue NOC. NOC is highly necessary for canceling the C.C endorsement from the RC Book. In the circumstances, the complainant had sustained irreparable injury and losses due to the non issuance of the NOC by the 2nd opposite party. The above said act of the 2nd opposite party is a clear deficiency in service and they are liable to the complainant for the same. Therefore the complainant prays for allowing the complaint.
8. In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant adduced oral testimony as PW1 and produced 2 documents which are marked as Ext.A1 and A2. Ext A1 is the copy of the registration certificate of the complainant’s vehicle showing the complainant’s name as the registered owner with hire purchase endorsement in the name of the 2nd opposite party. Ext A2 is the statement of account in the name of the complainant issued from Allahabad Bank, Pathanamthitta showing the payments of the loan installments to the 2nd opposite party.
9. On the other hand, the contention of the 2nd opposite party is that the copy of the RC Book is highly necessary for the issuance of the NOC which is not produced by the complainant in spite of their demand for the same. So they argued that they have not committed any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant. Therefore they prays for the dismissal of the complaint.
10. Though they have raised such a contention, they have not adduced any oral or documentary evidence in their favor. But they have cross examined PW1.
11. On the basis of the available materials on record, it is seen that the complainant is the registered owner of a two wheeler bearing registration No. KL-62/3566 and she purchased the said vehicle from the first opposite party by availing loan from the 2nd opposite party which is evident from Ext.A1. At the same time, Ext.A2 shows that the complainant had paid the entire loan amount to the 2nd opposite party. Further the 2nd opposite party had no case that the complainant is a defaulter in the loan transaction. Thus we find that the complainant is not a defaulter to the 2nd opposite party. The complainant’s case is that though she had cleared her loan to the 2nd opposite party, they are not issuing the NOC. 2nd opposite party also admitted this facts and they justifies the said act by saying that the complainant did not given the copy of the RC Book as demanded by them. But the said contention cannot be accepted on the basis of the following deposition of PW1 “RC Book ന്റെ copy വേണമെന്ന് എന്നോട് അവര് പറഞ്ഞു. അതനുസരിച്ച് 6 തവണ ഞാന് RC Book ന്റെ copy 2nd opposite partyക്ക് നല്കിയിട്ടുണ്ട്” “witness adds എന്നെ ഇപ്പോള് cross ചെയ്യുന്ന 2nd opposite party Branch Manager രുടെ കയ്യിലാണ് നല്കിയിട്ടുള്ളത്കൂടാതെ loan കൃത്യമായി തിരിച്ചടച്ച ഞാന് RC Book ന്റെ copy കൊടുക്കാതിരിക്കേണ്ട ആവശ്യവും ഇല്ലല്ലോ” “ loan എടുത്ത സമയം RC Book ന്റെ ഒറിജിനലും, copy യും എല്ലാം നല്കിയിട്ടുണ്ട്. ഇതൊക്കെ വാങ്ങിയതിനുശേഷമാണ് loan അനുവദിച്ചു നല്കിയത്.”
12. It is pertinent to note that the 2nd opposite party has not made any attempt to discredit the complainant’s above said deposition. Further it is difficult to believe that the loan was given even without a copy of the RC Book. Moreover, the 2nd opposite party has not adduced any evidence to substantiate their contentions. Thus it is clear that the 2nd opposite parties act, the denial of the NOC to the complainant is willful and cannot be justified and it is not only an ordinary deficiency in service but it is a grave deficiency in service. Moreover, it is also an harassment to the complainant as the complainant is a 24 years old lady. In the circumstances, we find that this complaint is allowable against 2nd opposite party, as we find any deficiency in service against 1st opposite party.
13. In the result, this complaint is allowed thereby the 2nd opposite party is directed to issue the NOC in respect of the loan transaction of the complainant along with compensation of Rs.7500/- (Rupees Seven Thousand and Five hundred only) and cost of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) within 10 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to realize the whole amount ordered herein above with 10% interest from today till the realization of the whole amount. In the event of non-compliance of the order for issuing the NOC by the 2nd opposite party, complainant is allowed to approach the concerned transport authority with this order for canceling the hire purchase endorsement from the registration certificate and in that event, the concerned transport authority can treat this order as the NOC for canceling the hire purchase endorsement from the RC Book of the complainant’s vehicle No: KL-62/3566.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of September, 2014.
(Sd/-)
Jacob Stephen,
(President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member – I) : (Sd/-)
Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member – II) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : Sanila. P.S.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Copy of the registration certificate of the complainant’s vehicle.
A2 : Statement of account in the name of the complainant issued by Allahabad
Bank, Pathanamthitta.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
(By Order)
Copy to:- (1) Sanila. P.S, Pathalil Veedu, Puthusserimala.P.O.,
Ranni – 689 672.
- The Branch Manager, Aiswarya Motors, Pathanamthitta.P.O.
- The Branch Manager, Sreeram City Union Finance Ltd.,
College Road, Pathanamthitta – 689 645.
(4) The Stock File.
