<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 28.01.2009<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 16th APRIL 2009<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.243/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri.Srinivas Gowda V@ Srinivas. VS/o Venkataramaiah,Hindu, Major,Residing at No.772,4th Cross, 4th Main,Mathikere,Bangalore – 560 054.Advocate – Sri.R.Vijay KumarV/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTY The Manager,M/s. BAJAJ AUTO FINANCE LTD.,At No.29, I Floor,“ANUGRAHA”Swimming Pool Extension,P.G Halli Main Road,12th Cross, Malleshwarm,Bangalore – 560003.Having its registered office at Mumbai-Pune Road,Akrudi, Pune-411035.Advocate – Sri.Venkataramana K.R.<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<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 No Objection Certificate and return the blank cheques and pay a compensation of Rs.20,000/- 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 entered into financial agreement with OP on 11.06.2004 availed a loan of Rs.36,020/- to purchase a motor cycle bearing No.KA-04-EH-4734. He agreed to repay the said loan in an 36 EMI at the rate of Rs.1,298/- with 9.90% interest. As a security for the repayment of the said EMI he has given the blank cheques. The said vehicle was hypothecated in favour of the OP by RTO. Then complainant paid the entire loan amount with interest and sought for the ‘No Objection Certificate’ and also return of the unused blank cheques. Though OP acknowledged the receipt of entire loan amount but failed to return the said blank cheques and failed to issue NOC. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant to OP went in futile. Hence he felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. For no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant. According to OP most of the employees of its branch office left the job, due to communication gap there was some delay in issuance of the NOC. On the receipt of the complaint from the complainant they did try their level best to comply. Ultimately they issued the NOC and returned the cheques. Hence no such prejudice is caused to the complainant. The approach of the complainant is not fair and honest. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Affirmative<br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant availed the financial assistance from OP to purchase a two-wheeler agreeing to repay the same in 36 EMI. It is also not at dispute that OP got created the hypothecation of the said vehicle. An entry has been made in the R.C. It is further stated by the complainant as a security for the repayment of the said loan OP collected blank cheques. Thereafter complainant thought of foreclosure of the said loan. On discussions OP claimed Rs.46,728/- towards the full and final settlement of the loan. Complainant paid the same on 15.06.2007. This fact is also not at dispute.<br /> <br /> 7. Now the grievance of the complainant is that even though he discharged the entire loan with interest and other charges on 15.06.2007. OP failed to issue the NOC and intimation to the RTO to delete hypothecation entry and so also failed to return the unused blank cheques. Hence he felt deficiency in service. On the perusal of the defence set out by the OP almost all the facts are admitted, only defence is that as most of the employees of the OP branch left the job for dirth of staff, they are unable to issue the NOC immediately. It is all because of the communication gap. Ultimately they issued the NOC on 28.02.2009 though loan is cleared on 15.06.2007. This fact itself is sufficient to hold that there is a deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 8. Complainant being fed up with the hostile attitude of the OP filed this complaint on 28.01.2009. To save its skin out of sin. OP produced the NOC and returned the unused cheques on 28.02.2009 that is after one month from the date of filing of the complaint and also took steps for the cancellation of the hypothecation. Under the circumstances we find complainant for no fault of his is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss.<br /> <br /> 9. We are satisfied that complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. A token of compensation of Rs.5,000/- with litigation cost of Rs.500/- will meet the ends of justice. The purpose for which this complaint is filed is fulfilled. With these reasons we answer point Nos.1 & 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- and 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 16th day of April 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> Vln* <br /> <br />