By. Sri. Jose. V. Thannikode, President:
The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite party to get NOC, cost and compensation due to the unfair trade practice of opposite party.
2. Brief of the complaint:- The complainant had purchased Bajaj Platina bike KL 12 C 6332 from KVR Show room and the complainant had purchased the bike by availing finance from opposite party. After that the opposite party sent their agent for the collection of the monthly EMI payment at the complainant's place at Bathery. The complainant had regularly paid the EMI as per the direction of opposite party through their agents. While so the complainant had completed full payment of EMI by 06.02.2013 and also the opposite party had given their receipt shows that the complainant had paid full payment and the finance became closed. Thereafter the complainant had approached the opposite party for the purpose of removing the hypothecation from the RC on 06.02.2013. But the opposite party were not co-operating with the complainant. After that the complainant approached the opposite party for the same in several occasions that is on 13.08.2013, 22.02.2014, 16.10.2014. But the opposite party purposely neglected personally and through phone the complainant's request.
3. The opposite party willfully and purposely caused mental agony and mental pressure to the complainant by not responding to the complainant's request. Whenever the complainant had approached the opposite party for the same they gave an invague answer to the complainant. Finally the complainant had approached the opposite party on 04.01.2015 then also they replied in the same manner and refused to remove the hypothecation from RC. Hence the complainant filed this complaint to direct the opposite party to provide NOC to remove hypothecation from the RC of the vehicle and to pay compensation and cost of the proceedings.
4. Notice served to opposite party and they appeared and filed version. In the version they denied all the allegations and stated that the complainant approached the opposite party and shown his inability to pay the entire outstanding dues because of personal inconvenience and requested the opposite party to that the complainant is able to pay Rs.3,300/- only and requested to waive the remaining amount. As per the request the opposite party collected Rs.3,300/- and waived Rs.23,102/- and his loan account was closed on 06.03.2013. The opposite party further stated that as per the complainant's request the NOC dated 15.03.2013 was issued from our regional office at Cochin to our branch office at Kozhikode through courier and information was given to complainant to collect the NOC from Kozhikode Branch and denied the appearance of complainant in the office of opposite party at Kozhikode branch. Hence after 90 days the Kozhikode branch office sent back the NOC to our regional office. Hence the opposite party stated that the opposite party has not done any deficiency of service and produced the NOC before the Forum and prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost and compensation to the opposite party.
5. Complainant filed proof affidavit and stated as stated in the complaint and he examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 is marked. Ext.A1 is the letter given by the opposite party to the complainant stating the his loan account is closed. Opposite party also filed proof affidavit and stated as stated in the version and he is examined as OPW1 and Ext.B1 to B5 documents were marked. Ext.B1 is the Agreement. Ext.B2 is the Statement of Account. Ext.B3 and B4 are the Form 35. Ext.B5 is the letter which shows that the NOC sent to Kozhikode office from the Regional office on 19.03.2013.
6. On perusal of complaint, version and documents the Forum raised the following points for consideration:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of opposite party?
2. Relief and Cost.
7. Point No.1:- Anyway the loan transaction and closure of the entire loan account is admitted by the opposite party in his version and the NOC also produced before the Forum to cancel the HP endorsement. Opposite party also admitted in his version that the complainant requested the opposite party to give NOC but as per the Ext.B5 it is seen that the NOC has send to the branch office of opposite party instead of sending to the complainant. Opposite party further stated that the sending of the NOC to the branch office at Kozhikode is intimated to the complainant. But it is not proved with any document. Since it is an official act, if the intimation is send to the complainant there should be a copy of that letter with opposite party. Opposite party also deposed before the Forum that “it is intimated to the complainant that the Ext.B3 and B4 is ready with the opposite party's office”.
8. Since the loan account is closed and NOC is ready with opposite party it is the bounden duty of the opposite party to intimate the matter to the complainant with a registered letter or to send the NOC to the complainant with registered post. So we are of the opinion that since the loan account is closed and NOC is ready with the opposite party, not sending it in on a registered post and not intimated the matter to the complainant is a clear case of deficiency of service, since the NOC request is admitted by the opposite party in his version. Hence the Point No.1 is found accordingly.
9. Point No.2:- Since the Point No.2 is found against the opposite party, opposite party is liable to pay cost and compensation and the complainant is entitled for the same.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite party is directed to pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) as compensation and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant within 30 days of receipt of this Order. Thereafter the complainant is entitled for an interest at the rate of 15% per annum.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 8th day of April 2016.
Date of Filing:03.11.2015.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:-
PW1. Sasi. Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Party:-
OPW1. Babu. Legal Officer, Bajaj Finance Ltd, Calicut.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Copy of Receipt. Dt:06.02.2013.
Exhibits for the opposite party:-
B1. Copy of Agreement.
B2. Copy of Statement of Account.
B3. Form No.35.
B4. Form No.35.
B5. Copy of Letter.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD
a/-
