BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.344/2017

DATED ON THIS THE 21^st December 2018

      Present:  1) Sri. H.M.Shivakumara Swamy

B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT   

                     2) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.                   

                                                B.E., LLB., PGDCLP   - MEMBER

Sri. Devakumar,M.C.                           

Member

1.     The complainant filed the complaint under section 12 of the C.P.Act 1986, against the opposite parties, alleging deficiency in service and seeking a direction to issue NOC and to deliver the relevant documents in respect of the vehicle bearing No.KA-09-HM-3212 and to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/- with such other reliefs.
2.     The complainant purchased a Bajaj Pulsar NS200 vehicle bearing No.KA-09-HM-3212 from opposite party and availing loan from opposite party No.1.  A down payment of Rs.35,400/- was paid.  The monthly instalment was paid as per schedule and a sum of Rs.68,979/- has been paid through debit card on 09.08.2017.  The opposite parties failed to deliver the NOC and relevant documents in spite of request notice issued on 25.10.2017.  As such suffered mental agony and financial hardship, alleged deficiency in service by opposite parties and filed the complaint seeking reliefs.
3.      The opposite party No.1 filed version and submits they provided loan of Rs.96,876/- (including financial charges of Rs.10,376/- for 12 months) for purchase of vehicle and executed the loan documents.  The EMI of Rs.8,073/- for a period 12 months i.e. between 06.06.2017 to 06.05.2018, was agreed to pay on each month, as per terms and conditions.  The vehicle was hypothecated as security to the loan amount.  The down payment of Rs.35,400/- is denied as false.  The complainant was to pay an outstanding amount of Rs.8,073/- with late of Rs.242/- as on 20.07.2017 towards the EMI as on 06.07.2017, the same was paid to service provider of opposite party No.1 i.e. M/s checkmate.  On 21.07.2017, who erroneously generated two receipts each for a sum of Rs.8,075/-.  Later, the complainant sought for foreclosure of loan and remitted a sum of Rs.68,979/-. Realizing generation of two receipts, the service provider informed opposite party No.1 and requested for cancellation.  Thereby, the complainant owes one EMI amount due and hence opposite party not closed the loan amount and not issued the NOC.  Hence, the allegation of deficiency in service is denied and prays for dismissal of the complaint.
4.     The opposite party No.2 denies the allegation in their version and admits the sale of vehicle to the complainant, on payment of Rs.35,400/-.  The payment made to opposite party No.1 was not within their knowledge.  Only opposite party No.1 is responsible for issue of NOC, on payment of the entire loan amount, thereby prays for dismissal of the complaint as the same was not maintainable against them.
5.     The complainant and opposite party No.1 lead evidence by filing affidavit and relied on several documents.  Heard the oral submissions of complainant and counsels for opposite party No.1.  Perused the material on record and posted for orders.   
6.     The points arose for our consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought against the opposite parties, for issue of NOC and relevant documents in respect of his vehicle bearing No.KA-09-HM-3212 and other reliefs sought?
2. What order?

7.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :- Partly in the affirmative.

Point No.2 :- As per final order, for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

8.    Point No.1:- The complainant borrowed loan from opposite party No.1 to purchase a Bajaj Pulsar NS 200 bike bearing No.KA-09-HM-3212.  A sum of Rs.35,400/- has been paid as down payment. 
9.    The monthly instalment amount has been paid as per schedule and a sum of Rs.68,979/- has been paid through debit card on 09.08.2017 vide receipt No.0090817109 and opposite party No.1 acknowledged the same by a receipt.   
10. Upon demand for NOC and other relevant documents, the opposite parties failed to furnish.  Hence, the aggrieved alleged the deficiency in service and filed the complaint seeking reliefs.
11. The opposite party No.1 contended that, on verification of documents, they have extended a loan of Rs.96,876/- (including the financial charges of Rs.10,376/- for 12 months), towards purchase of a vehicle bearing registration No.KA-09-HM-3212.  A loan agreement has been executed agreeing to the terms and conditions of payment particulars, on 10.05.2017.  the complainant was bound to pay an EMI of Rs.8,073/- from 06.06.2017 to 06.05.2018.  The vehicle was hypothecated towards the loan borrowed.
12. The opposite party No.1 contended that, the complainant had not paid Rs.35,400/- to them.  As on 20.07.2017, the complainant had an out standing amount of Rs.8,073/- with late payment penalty of Rs.242/-. 
13. The complainant remitted Rs.8,075/- to M/s Checkmate, the service provider of opposite party No.1, on 21.07.2017, towards the EMI amount for July 2017, (due on 06.07.2017) vide receipt No.A 8198171700046.
14. M/s Checkmate, inadvertently generated two receipts (numbered as A8198171700046 and A8198171700045) as against the payment of Rs.8,075/- only by the complainant on 21.07.2017.  Later, realising the generation of two receipts as against the payment of Rs.8,075/- only, M/s Checkmate intimated the opposite party and requested for cancellation of one wrongly generated receipt.
15. When the complainant approached opposite party No.1, with a request on foreclosure of the loan amount on payment of Rs.68,979/-, since there was an outstanding of Rs.8,075/-, the opposite party not proceeded to issue NOC and other documents, until payment of the balance amount paid.  Thereby, the allegation of deficiency in service is denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
16. On perusal of the material on record, the complainant had availed loan from opposite party No.1 towards purchase of a vehicle and agreed to repay the loan amount as per schedule, but failed.  Thereby, the opposite party No.1, levied penalty for late payment.  Relaying on the letter dated 22.07.2017, issued by M/s Checkmate, the service provider of opposite party No.1, regarding the cancellation of one receipt, wrongly generated as against the payment of Rs.8,075/- on 21.07.2017 and relaying on the submissions of opposite party No.1, we opine that, the complainant still owes outstanding of one EMI amount to opposite party no.1 and on payment of the said amount only, the complainant is entitled to receive NOC and other relevant documents.  Further, the opposite party No.2 has not committed any deficiency in service to the complainant and hence complaint against opposite party No.2 is liable to be dismissed.   Accordingly, the point No.1 is answered partly in the affirmative.
17. Point No.2:- In view of the above observations, the complaint is to be allowed in part, with a direction to pay one EMI amount to opposite party No.1 (i.e. Rs.8,075/-) and to receive the relevant documents. Hence, we pass the following. 

:: O R D E R ::

1. The complaint is allowed in part.
2. The complainant is hereby directed to pay Rs.8,075/-, in 15 days, to opposite party No.1 and upon receipt of amount, opposite party is directed to issue NOC and other relevant documents to the complainant in 30 days.
3. The complaint against opposite party No.2 is dismissed.
4. In case of default to comply this order, the opposite party No.1 to undergo imprisonment and also liable for fine under section 27 of the C.P.Act, 1986.
5. Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, transcript corrected by us and then pronounced in open court on this the 21^st December 2018)