1.      The present Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the “Act”) against the impugned order dated 31.03.2017, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan (‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 877 of 2015. In the impugned order, the State Commission disposed of the said Appeal with a direction to the Petitioner that if the Complainant has paid the complete loan, it is the duty of the Petitioner to give a No Objection Certificate (NOC) to the Respondent/Complainant. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jaipur-III (“District Forum”) vide Order dated 29.06.2015, dismissed the Consumer Complaint No. 1353/2012 (Old No. 1342/2010) but opined that if the Respondent/Complainant pays the due amount of Rs.28,089.99 for the link loan to the Petitioner/ Bank, the Bank will issue the NOC and return the original documents of the vehicle.

2.      Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that the Complainant availed a vehicle loan of Rs.13,25,000/- vide Loan Account No. LAJAI00007346290 dated 05.09.2006 from Petitioner Bank. The loan was repayable in 35 Equated Monthly Instalments (EMIs) of Rs.42,049 each. The Respondent was regular in paying EMIs but defaulted due to a temporary financial crunch. Later, the loan account was settled on 27.07.2010 by making a payment of Rs.82,069.00 as a full and final settlement/one-time settlement.  The Petitioner Bank promised to issue a No Objection Certificate (NOC) to the Respondent upon the full and final settlement. Despite receiving the full and final settlement amount vide cheque No. 968653, receipt No. 1007506923, the Petitioner Bank did not issue the NOC.  The Respondent filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act before the District Forum Jaipur, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the Petitioner Bank.  The Respondent also prayed for the issuance of the NOC, return of all original documents, and claimed a total amount of Rs.2,21,000/- as damages for mental agony and miscellaneous expenses.

3.   The Petitioner Bank, in its reply, denied all allegations.  It was contended that in June 2006, the Respondent had availed a link loan of Rs.1,41,000/- against the said vehicle from the Petitioner Bank. The link loan was to be repaid in 26 EMIs, and the tenure of the loan expired due to the efflux of time. A sum of Rs.51,855/- was due to be paid and payable against the linked loan account No. LUJAI00010694774. The Petitioner Bank blocked the issuance of the NOC pending payment of the due amount of Rs. 51,855/-.  However, the amount claimed before the District Forum as due was Rs. 28,089.99.

4.      The learned District Forum Order vide order dated 29.06.2015, dismissed the Consumer Complaint No. 1353/2012 (Old No. 1342/2010). The District Forum opined that if the Complainant pays the due amount of Rs. 28,089.99 for the link loan, the Bank would issue the NOC and return the original documents of the vehicle.

5.   Being dissatisfied, the Petitioner Bank filed an Appeal and the State Commission vide order dated 31.03.2017, directed the Bank to issue the NOC to the Complainant if the complete loan is paid.

6.      In his arguments, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner asserted that the State Commission and the District Forum erred in not considering the due amount of Rs. 51,855/- in the linked loan account, which justified withholding of the NOC. The Respondent was obligated to clear all dues, including the linked loan amount, for the issue of NOC. The settlement of Rs.82,069.00 was for the primary vehicle loan account and did not cover the linked loan, which was a separate liability. He denied allegations of unfair trade practice or deficiency in service and asserted that the actions were in as per the terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties.

7.      On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Respondent/ Complainant argued that the Respondent entered into a one-time settlement with the Petitioner Bank and paid the settled amount of Rs. 82,069.00 as full and final settlement for all loans taken from the Petitioner Bank. The settlement included the linked loan, and hence, there were no dues with respect to the linked loan as alleged by the Petitioner. He relied on RBI Circular No. RBI/2009-10/93, UBD PCB. MC. No. 3/09.14.00/2009-10 dated 01.07.2009, particularly clause No. 2.2.2, which mandates that banks follow NPA classification at a borrower level and not at a product level. He further contended that the amount due before the District Forum was Rs.28,089.99, and this cannot be increased at the appellate stage to Rs.51,855/- as on 28.04.2017. He sought the dismissal of the Revision Petition with costs, emphasizing that the Petitioner Bank’s actions constituted unfair trade practices and deficiency in service.

8.      I have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record, including the orders of the learned District Forum and the learned State Commission, and heard the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both Parties.

9.      The central issue is whether the linked loan account No. LUJAI00010694774 was included in the One Time Settlement (OTS) along with the vehicle loan account No. LAJAI00007346290? In this regard, it is admitted position that the Respondent availed a vehicle loan a/c No. LAJAI00007346290 of Rs. 13,25,000/- on 05.09.2006, repayable in 35 EMIs of Rs. 42,049 each. The Respondent had defaulted certain EMIs due to some financial crunch but later settled the loan on 27.07.2010 by paying Rs.82,069.00 as a full and final settlement.  It is also undisputed that in June 2006, the Respondent availed a separate linked loan a/c No. LUJAI00010694774 of Rs.1,41,000/- against the vehicle, repayable in 26 EMIs. A sum of Rs. 51,855/- was due on the linked loan A/c No. LUJAI00010694774 as of 28.04.2017. No document was produced by the Complainant to prove that this linked loan was also included in the OTS he arrived at with the Bank with respect to the vehicle loan. The Petitioner Bank asserted that an outstanding amount on the linked loan account was due. However, no statement of account for the said linked loan was placed on record. The Respondent did not produce any records to establish that payment for the linked loan was completed and no balance was due. It is thus established that the linked loan A/c No. LUJAI00010694774 is yet to be settled.

11.    Based on the above deliberations, the Revision Petition No.1807 of 2017 is allowed to the extent that if the Complainant pays the outstanding dues on the linked loan A/c No. LUJAI00010694774, the Petitioner Bank is directed to issue the NOC to the Complainant with respect to the vehicle in question within a period of one month.

12.    There shall be no order as to costs. All pending Applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.