Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 580.
Instituted on : 24.12.2015.
Decided on : 28.02.2017.
Parveen Kumar s/o Sh. Balbir Kumar R/o Village Madina Korsan, Distt. Rohtak..
………..Complainant.
Vs.
Bajaj Finance Ltd., through its Manager office at Ansh Bajaj, Delhi Road, Rohtak.
……….Opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Sandeep Hooda, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Gulshan Chawla Advocate for the opposite party.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that the complainant has obtained a loan of Rs.51225/- on bike Pulsar 150 two wheeler bearing no.HR-15B-8490 for a tenure of 24 months on 05.06.2014 from the opposite party and the opposite party issued a repayment schedule in this regard from 05.06.2014 to 05.06.2016. It is averred that on 05.06.2014 the complainant deposited the instalment amounting to Rs.2765/- vide receipt No.324451 and next month he decided to deposit the whole of loan amount with the opposite party and has deposited the remaining loan amount alongwith interest which was due towards complaint as Rs.50000/- and opposite party has issued the receipt numbers 2456922 to 2456930 dated 29.07.2014 and the complainant had also deposited an amount of Rs.50000/- with the opposite party which was pending on 29.07.2014. It is averred that the complainant had cleared all the loan amount on 29.07.2014 as per terms and conditions of the opposite party and nothing was due against the complainant. After that complainant applied for No Objection Certificate but the opposite party had lingered on the matter with one excuse or other. It is averred that despite repeated requests, NOC was not issued to the complainant. It is averred that the branch manager of the opposite party offered that complainant has to deposit an amount of Rs.14000/- approximately to obtain NOC of the vehicle No.HR-15B-8490 whereas the complainant did not obtain any further loan from the opposite party and nothing was due towards the complainant after 29.07.2014. It is averred that the act of opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to issue NOC of the said vehicle in favour of the complainant and to pay Rs.20000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. On notice, the opposite party appeared and filed its written statement submitting therein that the complainant had approached the opposite party and requested for financial assistance for purchase of a two wheeler and the opposite party agreed to extent financial facility to the tune of Rs.66360/- (including financial charges of Rs.15135/- for 24 months). It is averred that later on as per mutual understanding on 08.05.2014 a loan agreement no.L2WROHO3057389 was executed. It is averred that the complainant has opted/chosen ‘Auto Debit Mandate’ payment as one the payment mode for remittance of respective month loan installments without any delay of default. It is averred that as per terms and conditions of loan agreement complainant was supposed to remit Rs.66360/- to clear the loan account out of which complainant remitted Rs.52765/- thus paid Rs.13395/- short to close this loan account. It is averred that the 1st EMI paid by the complainant through bank vide cheque no.324451 and rest EMI’s were rejected by complainant banker with remark as “Signature mismatch”. Further the OP never informed the complainant to pay Rs.50000/- towards full and final settlement as a pre closure amount to close the account as alleged by the complainant and the same is subject to strict proof on documents. It is averred that complainant had remitted the amount of Rs.50000/- in advance and informed the OP that the complainant will remit the remaining amount on its due dates and on the basis of representation made by the complainant, the OP has collected Rs.50000/- from the complainant in the month of July 14. It is averred that as on dated 12.02.2016 the complainant is in outstanding of Rs.5300/- towards installment overdues, Rs.76/- towards other overdue, alongwith Rs.8295/- towards 3 future instalments. It is averred that complainant has not cleared entire loan amount as per assurance hence question of issuance of NOC to the complainant does not arise at all. It is averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
4. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and has closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite party has tendered documents Ex.R1 & Ex.R2 and has closed his evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present case it is not disputed that the complainant had taken loan from the opposite party and the repayment of same is also not disputed. The grievance of the complainant is that he had paid one instalment of Rs.2765/- on 05.06.2014 and remaining amount of Rs.50000/- on 29.07.2014 but despite depositing the total amount, No objection Certificate was not issued to the complainant despite his repeated requests. To prove his case complainant has placed on record copy of R.C of vehicle Ex.C1, Account Statement Ex.C2, copy of legal notice Ex.C3 and copy of Registered covere Ex.C4. On the other hand, contention of ld. counsel for the opposite party is that as on dated 12.02.2016 the complainant is in outstanding of Rs.5300/- towards installment overdues, Rs.76/- towards other overdue, alongwith Rs.8295/- towards 3 future instalments total Rs.13595/-. As complainant has not cleared entire loan amount as per assurance hence NOC cannot be issued to the complainant
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that it is not disputed by the opposite party that an amount of Rs.52765/- has been paid by the complainant. As per terms and conditions of loan agreement Ex.R1, vide condition no.15 it is submitted that “ BFL shall be entitled to adjust the advance installment and/or security deposit /initial payment made by the borrower and as more specially descried in Part D of the schedule herein under towards any outstanding amount in such manner and at such time as BFL may determine in its sole discretion. But the part –D regarding advance installment has been left blank by the opposite party. Moreover as per Account Statement Ex.R2 no outstanding overdue amount has been shown by the opposite party. As such demanding the remaining amount of from the complainant is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Moreover the contention of opposite party that an amount of Rs.13595/- due against the complainant is not supported with affidavit of the opposite party. Hence the same has no evidentiary value. In this regard we have placed reliance upon the law cited in IV(2013)CPJ 251(NC) titled Muthoot Leasing and Finance Ltd. Vs. Sabu whereby Hon’ble National commission has held that: “Repayment of entire amount-Issuance of no objection certificate denied-Exorbitant amount claimed-Mental agony and financial loss-Deficiency in service-District Forum allowed complaint-National Commission upheld the order of District Forum allowing the complaint” and has also placed reliance upon 2006(1)CLT 545 titled Thukaram Anantha Shet Vs. Karnataka Bank Ltd., whereby Hon’ble National Commission has held that: “Consumer-Banking Service-Loan repayment-Title deeds/documents not returned by OP-Held that non return of the pledged documents after repayment of loan would amounts to deficiency in service”, as per 11(2008) CPJ 75 titled Haryana State Co-operative Housing Ltd. Vs. Ishwar Singh & Ors., Hon’ble Haryana State Commission, Panchkula has held that: “Release of documents cannot be withheld when entire loan amount repaid-O.P.No.1 if failed to satisfy O.P.No.2, liability cannot be sought to be shifted to complainants-O.Ps liable to return original title deeds-Compensation and cost awarded”, as per order dated 29.03.2010 Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana Panchkula in Indusuind Bank Vs. Jitender has held that: “The guidelines of R.B.I are being mis-interpreted by the Bank while depriving the complainant of his right of issuing ‘No Dues Certificate’. It is further held that once the complainant has cleared loan account, the opposite party is under a legal obligation to issue No Dues Certificate to him”. In view of the aforesaid law which are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that opposite party has failed to prove the outstanding dues against the complainant and as such complainant is entitled for NOC.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that opposite party shall issue N.O.C to the complainant without charging any amount from the complainant and shall also pay Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant maximum within one month from the date of decision. Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
10. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
28.02.2017.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
………………………………….
Ved Pal, Member.
