BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Jagmal Singh, aged about 62 years, son of Sh.Bhangi Ram, resident of VPO Bihta, District Ambala.

……. Complainant.

Versus

1. Bajaj Finance Ltd. 42, Two Wheeler, G.T. Road, Near Vita Milk Plant, Ambala City 134003 through its authorized signatory.
2. M/S Bajaj Finance Corporate Office, Pune Ahmed Nagar Road, Viman Nagar, Pune-411014 through its authorized signatory.

….…. Opposite Parties.

 Before:       Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                       Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

           Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.   

Present:       Complainant in person.

                    Shri Rajeev Sachdeva, Advocate, counsel for the OPs.

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1.  To issue NOC to the complainant against the loan in question.
2. To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing him mental agony and harassment;
3. To pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

OR

Grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deems fit. 

2.             Brief facts of this case are that on 27.07.2020 the complainant had purchased a New Motor Cycle i.e. Bајај СТ-100 bearing registration No.HR85D-1761 from Kirti Automobile, Saha, District Ambala and the same has been financed from the OPs. Thereafter, the complainant has paid all the installments to the OPs, from time to time without any interruption and the whole installments had been paid by him through SBI, Saha Account No33763076580. Thereafter, the complainant approached the OPs on numerous occasions and requested them to issued the NOC but to no avail. Under those circumstance, legal notice dated 14.10.2022 was also served upon the OPs in the matter but to no avail.  Hence, the present complaint.
3.           Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed written version stating therein that OP No.2 is a Non-Banking Finance Company registered as 'Bajaj Finance Limited' under the provisions of Indian Companies Act, 1956' and operates its business under the strict supervision of 'Reserve Bank of India'. The OPs are having presence in the country and having ample goodwill with Brand Name "BAJAJ". The complainant himself approached OP No.2 and requested for extending financial facility for purchase of a BAJAJ make motorcycle TWO WHEELER-CT 100 ALLOY WHEELS KSBS6. Considering the said request and credentials of the complainant, the OP No.2 had agreed to extend financial facility to the tune of Rs.20,816/- (which includes financial charges of Rs.1916). The subject loan was extended for 12 months with first EMI of Rs.1730/- effective from 03.09.2020 to 03.08.2021 and loan agreement number L2WAMB08475279 was executed. As per loan scheme, the complainant has opted/chosen one of the repayment mode as ACH to repay the loan installments. The complainant clearly understood that, prompt repayment of loan installments in time without any delay or default i.e. on or before 3rd of each respective month is the core essence of the loan agreement. The subject vehicle was secured to the loan and is duly hypothecated to the OP No.2 till closure of the loan. OP NO.2 is only a financer in this transaction and is not engaged in sales of vehicles. OP No.2 updates the vehicle detail in its record on the basis of information/documents provided by the complainant as per the agreed terms and conditions of loan agreement, but the complainant has failed to provide the registration certificate to OP No.2 hence due to non supply of copy of registration certificate, the OP No.2 was unable to update the registration detail of secured loan vehicle in its records to issue the NOC with Form 35. As on 06.02.2023 the complainant loan account is closed and there is no dues remained towards complainant.  It is the complainant, who neither approached OP NO.2 office nor raised any concern at any point of time, hence the allegation that the complainant requested to issue the NOC is strictly denied and disputed and same is subject to strict proof on records. OP NO.2 is always willing to issue the NOC along with the Form 35, subject to furnish of the copy of registration certificate to the OP NO.2. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OPs and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.
4.           Complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure CW/A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-10 and closed the evidence of the complainant.  On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit of Sachin Verma, Representative of the OPs Company-Bajaj Finance Ltd. Registered office at Materials Gate, Old Service Building, Mumbai, Pune Road, Akudi, Pune-411 035 and having one of its office at B-60/61 Naraina Industrial Area Phase IInd, Behind Bentex Factory, New Delhi-110028 as Annexure RX alongwith documents as Annexure OP/1 to OP/4 and closed the evidence on behalf of the OPs.
5.            We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for the OPs and have also carefully gone through the case file.
6.           The complainant submitted that by not issuing NOC/NDC despite the fact that he had paid the entire loan amount, the OPs are deficient in providing service and also adopted unfair trade practice.
7.           On the contrary, the learned counsel for the OPs while reiterating the objections taken in the written version submitted that since the complainant failed to provide registration details of the vehicle in question, therefore, the NOC could not be supplied to him. 
8.           It may be stated here that to writhe out of the situation for non issuance of the NOC to the complainant qua the loan in question, the only stand taken by the OPs is that since the complainant failed to provide registration details of the vehicle in question, as such they were unable to update the details of vehicle in their record, and, therefore the NOC could not be supplied to the complainant. It may be stated here that the OPs have miserably failed to place on record an iota of evidence to prove that they ever demanded the registration certificate of the vehicle in question. Legal notice dated 14.10.2022, Annexure C-1 was also served upon the OPs by the complainant seeking NOC qua the loan in question but the OPs failed to provide NOC to the complainant.  Thus, by not issuing the NOC/NDC to the complainant, qua the loan account in question, despite the fact that his account was closed by the OPs as he paid the entire loan installments, the OPs are deficient in providing service.  The complainant is therefore held entitled to get NOC/NDC from the OPs in respect of the loan account in question. 
9.           In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby allow the present complaint and direct the OPs, in the following manner:-   
   1. To issue NOC/NDC to the complainant qua the loan account in question. 
   2. To pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
   3. To pay Rs.3,000/- as litigation expenses.

The OPs are further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, failing which the OPs shall pay penalty @ Rs.50/- per day, for non-issuance of NOC/NDC and pay interest @ 8% per annum on the awarded amount, from the date of default, till realization. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced:- 03.06.2024