IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli<br /> B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> <br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 65/10 DATED 29.03.2010<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant Er. Sreekanta Guptha B.P, Managing Director, India IRobot (India) Pvt. Ltd., # 2940, D-8, 3rd Floor, Temple Road, V.V. Puram, Mysore-02.<br /> <br /> (By Sri. J.P, Advocate)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party Branch Manager/Respective Authorities, Tata Motor Finance Ltd., e-Nxt Financials Pvt. Ltd., 189-K10, Ramavilasa Road, Mysore-24. <br /> (By Sri. P.S.M, Advocate)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 22.02.2010<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 09.03.2010<br /> Date of order : 29.03.2010<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 20 Days.<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> 1. The complainant has filed the complaint seeking direction to the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- and also to issue NOC, alleging certain deficiencies in service.<br /> <br /> 2. It is alleged in the complaint that, the complainant availed loan from the opposite party on 07.02.2007, agreeing to repay by 48 equal EMI’s, to purchase Tata Safari. As required by the opposite party PDCs were supplied. Opposite party misplaced PDCs and sent apology letter requesting to reissue new cheques. That was complied with. The opposite party also did not notify non MICR cheques and kept quite for some time. Without noticing, opposite party called on when the complainant was in USA. Complainant went through mental stress, loosing focus on the business. It made the complainant rush back to India to set right the things. The opposite party further failed to send the cheques and called upon the complainant, for which cash payment was made. A letter dated 31.02.2010 from advocate of the company was received by the complainant recalling the loan stating that, as on 12.01.2010 Rs.1,81,155/- is due. On 16.01.2010, the complainant verifed with the opposite party that, all EMI’s were paid in time and one missed installment was collected through cash. The opposite party also equally surprised with the notice of the advocate of the company. Opposite party informed that, all are clear. However, complainant wrote on 02.02.2010, mentioning the entire facts. Accordingly, it is prayed to allow the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. The opposite party in pursuance of the notice appeared before the Forum through advocate and the matter for posted was filing vakalat and version. Thereafter, the learned advocate or the opposite party remained absent. No version is filed.<br /> <br /> 4. To prove the facts alleged in the complaint, the complainant has filed his affidavit. Certain documents are produced. We have heard the arguments and perused the records.<br /> <br /> 5. Now, we have to consider whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service as alleged, by the opposite party and that he is entitled to the reliefs sought?<br /> <br /> 6. For the following reasons, our finding is partly in affirmative.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> 7. The facts alleged in the complaint noted here before have been stated by the complainant in his affidavit. To substantiate the said facts, certain documents are produced.<br /> <br /> 8. In the complaint, the complainant has specifically stated that, entire loan has been repaid and nothing is due to the opposite party. From the account statement of the opposite party, copy of which is produced by the complainant, it is pointed out that as on 16.01.2010 zero balance is shown. In view of this statement, the fact stated by the complainant in his affidavit shall have to be believed. Though the opposite party appeared before the Forum through advocate, later remained absent and not denied or disputed the claim put forth by the complainant. Under the circumstances, we have no reason to disbelieve the case of the complainant.<br /> <br /> 9. Considering the account statement wherein zero balance is shown, the amount alleged as due in the notice that was sent by the advocate of the company, is pram-facie in correct. In addition to it, the opposite party had misplaced the cheques and the complainant had to again issue fresh cheques and then the opposite party did not sent a cheque, for collection for which the complainant had to pay the amount in cash etc., are established. Taking into consideration of the entire facts, the statement of the complainant that, he suffered mentally and inconvenience etc., shall have to be believed. Accordingly, we pass the following order.<br /> <br /> ORDER <br /> 1. The complaint is partly allowed.<br /> 2. The opposite party is hereby directed to issue NOC to the complainant.<br /> 3. Further, opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- compensation to the complainant towards mental agony and inconvenience caused, within a month from the date of this order failing which the amount will carry interest at the rate of 10% p.a.<br /> 4. So also opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant towards cost of the proceedings.<br /> 5. Give a copy of this order to both the parties according to Rules.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 29th March 2010)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br />