OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANGUL
PRESENT:- SRI DURGA CHARAN MISHRA.
PRESIDENT
A N D
Smt.Sunanda Mallick &Sri K.K.Mohanty,
MEMBERS .
Consumer Complaint No. 06 of 2011
Date of Filling : -04.01.2011.
Date of Order :- 31.08.2018.
Ganeswar Sethi,S/O.Jogeswar Sethi,
At/P.O.Bagedia,P.S.Chhendipada,Dist.Angul.
_________________________Complainant.
Vrs.
Branch-In-Charge,Magma Leasing Ltd.,
Angul Branch,Representing for Magma Leasing Ltd.,
At-Hanuman Bazar,N.H.42, P.O/P.S/Dist.Angul- 759122.
_________________________ Opp. parties.
For the complainant :- Sri B.C.Pradhan & associates(Advs.).
For the opp.party :- Sri M.K.Panda & associates (Advs).
: J U D G E M E N T :
Sri K.K.Mohanty,Member.
The complainant has filed this case with prayer to direct the opp.party to issue loan clearance certificates ,return the bounced and unused cheques and return the duplicate key on the grounds stated therein.
2. The complainant’s case runs thus:-
That, the complainant had purchased one TATA Truck having ChassisNo. 444026MTZ147621, Engine No. 697TC57MTZ160911,and Registration No.OR19D 6858 by taking loan from opp.party. There was a contract between the parties for loan repayment in 47 installments fixing to Rs. 32,000.00 per each installment. Due to delay in payment of instalment the opp.party seized the vehicle. Overall to release the vehicle, the complainant arranged money and released the vehicle from opp.party before the loan repayment period.
That, after receiving full and final settled amount and pre-term termination of agreement the opp.party released the truck on 12.11.2010.
That, the complainant demanded loan clearance certificate , duplicate key and bounced and unused cheques issued by him which were retained by the opp.party but in vain, so to get justice he has filed this case.
3. The opp.party has contested the case by filing written version with prayer to dismiss the case, stating that it is not maintainable, there is no cause of action and this Forum has no jurisdiction to enquire into the matter.
In view of the rival pleadings of the parties, the following issues arise for consideration.
Issues :-
- Whether there is consumer and service provider relationship between the parties ?
- Whether the complainant has cause of action to file this case, and whether the case is barred by limitation or in any other law ?
- Whether the case is maintainable before this forum or not?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for or not ?
- To what other reliefs the parties are entitled to ?
: F I N D I N G S:
Issue No.(i):- Since the complainant had taken loan and purchased the truck and repaying installments to the opp.party, there is consumer and service provider relationship between them .
Issue No.(ii) :- After repayment of the entire loan dues, the complainant requested the opp.party to supply NOC, unused cheques and documents and key of the truck retained by them but the opp.party did not comply it for which the complainant has cause of action to file this case.
Nothing has been shown by the opp.party to justify that the case is barred by law of limitations or any other law.
Issue No.(iii):- As it appears from the pleadings and argument of both the parties, as per the loan agreement clauses the matter was referred to the sole arbitrator who has passed award in favour of opp.party on 30.10.2009. According to the opp.party since the matter has been decided by the Arbitrator this forum has no jurisdiction to sit over the matter and it is not maintainable. Though ,after the arbitration proceeding, the case for the same cause of action is not maintainable before this forum but the fact and circumstances of the present case are quite different. Here, after repayment of the entire loan dues, the vehicle has been returned to the complainant but NOC and other documents with key are not returned. These matter have come out after repayment of the loan amount and these are not decided by the arbitrator. It is seen that , after the award passed by the arbitrator, the opp.party has received the entire loan dues from the complainant. Therefore this forum has jurisdiction to decide the matter and the case is maintainable.
The decisions relied on by the opp.party’s counsel is not applicable to the fact and circumstances of the present case specially as after the award of the arbitrator ,the opp.party has received the full loan amount from the complainant and released the truck in his favour.
Issue No.(iv) & (v):- On 25.4.2018 the opp.party’s counsel has filed Email communication made to him by the opp.party (Branch In-charge) (Annexure-A). The counsel has also served the copy of this Email communication on the complainant’s counsel. In the above communication in the 1st para it has been stated that after issuance of the NOC to the complainant he cannot submit the SOA. It is further stated in the communication that NOC has already been issued to the customer by waiving an amount of Rs. 31,940.00 only. In the third para of the communication, it is stated that on 18.4.2011 the NOC has already been issued to the complainant.
The aforesaid three statements of the opp.party is contradictory to each other. The opp.party has not furnished any documentary evidence to justify that NOC has been issued to the complainant. According to the complainant due to non-supply of the NOC he is unable to sale the truck and suffering a lot. The complainant has filed release order of vehicle No. OR19D 6858 issued to Kamlesh Stock Yard ,Angul (Annexure-I) by authorized signatory of the opp.party which reveals that the vehicle has been released in favour of the complainant on 12.11.2010 i.e after the order of the arbitrator. Hence it is clear that the complainant has already repaid all the loan dues to the opp.party. Therefore he is entitled to get the NOC with compensation.
The opp.party’s counsel has vehemently argued and mentioned in his written argument that the complainant has not filed any documentary evidence to justify that the key of the truck or any other used or unused documents have been retained by him (opp.party ) .So no order to return the key or unused cheques is passed.
In view of the above discussions the complainant is entitled to get the NOC and compensation along with cost of litigation.
5. Hence the order :-
: O R D E R :
The case is disposed of on contest by both the parties. The opp.party is directed to issue NOC (loan clearance certificate) against the TATA LPT truck No. OR-19D-6858 and loan account number vide customer proposal No. PG/0096/V/05/000047 within 45 (Forty-Five) days of getting this order. Also the opp.party shall pay Rs. 5,000.00 (Rupees Five Thousand) towards mental agony of the complainant and Rs. 3,000.00 (Rupees Three Thousand) towards cost of litigation to the complainant within the aforesaid period.
Order delivered in the open forum today the 31st August,2018 with hand and seal of this Forum.
Typed to my dictation Sd/-
and corrected by me (Sri D. C. Mishra)
Sd/- President. (Sri K.K.Mohanty )
Member.
Sd/-
(Smt.S.Mallick),
Member.
