By Sri. MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
The averments of the complainant is as follows:-
1. In the year 2012, the complainant had availed a loan of Rs. 1,50,000/-(Rupees One lakh fifty thousand only) from the first opposite party to purchase an autorickshaw for this livelihood. The loan details were endorsed on the Certificate of Registration of the vehicle. Later the complainant had met with an accident and serious injuries were sustained to his back bone and two legs. As a result, the repayment of loan was defaulted. It is averred that at the time of accident, the complainant was liable to pay Rs. 37,981/- to the opposite parties as the balance of loan amount. On 19/09/2014 the complainant had repaid Rs.37,981/- to the opposite parties had with help of a charity organisation and same was endorsed on the passbook. At the time of closure of loan, the first opposite party had assured that NOC will be issued to RTO to cancel the endorsement of hypothecation. But in the month of June 2022, the complainant came to know from the Motor Vehicle Department that the opposite party did not issue NOC for cancellation of hypothecation in the Certificate of Registration. When the complainant had approached the opposite party, it was revealed that the opposite party had omitted to transfer the amount remitted on 19/09/2014 for closure of the loan. Moreover, the opposite party demanded to pay Rs. 51,000/- additionally as due amount of the loan as a condition to issue NOC. It is alleged by the complainant that the opposite party has failed to close the loan for 8 years of period even after receiving entire due amount on 19/09/2014. The act of the opposite party is amounted to deficiency in service causing mental agony, inconvenience and financial loss to the complainant. So the complainant has prayed for a direction to the opposite parties to issue NOC to cancel the endorsement of hypothecation in the Registration Certificate of the vehicle and to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainant as compensation for the sufferings of mental agony and hardship caused due to the acts of the opposite parties. The complainant has claimed Rs. 25,000/- as cost of the proceedings.
2. The complaint is admitted and issued notice to the opposite parties. The opposite parties have appeared and filed version jointly.
3. The opposite parties have denied allegation raised by the complainant and challenged maintainability of the complaint as time barred one. The first opposite party is the branch of the bank and second opposite party is the Head office of the first opposite party. It is admitted that the complainant had availed a loan of Rs.1,50,000/- from the opposite party as averred in the complaint. But the opposite parties have denied the averment of the complainant that the loan due amount was Rs. 37,981/- only as on 19/09/2014 as false and incorrect. The overdue as on 29/03/2014 itself was Rs. 1,00,723.83/- and during the same period the opposite party had received Rs. 55,769/- from CGTMSE as per the guidelines of CGTMSE, the bank has to take steps to recover the said amount from the complainant and pay back the same to CGTMSE. It is contended that the complainant had paid Rs. 45,00/- on 29/04/2014, Rs. 10,000/- on 06/06/2014 and Rs. 37,981/- on 19/09/2014 towards the above scheme. It is contended that the complainant did not remit entire dues on 19/09/2014. It is contended that the opposite parties are public institution and manager is not having any authority to close any account without complying required formalities and procedures laid down by RBI and Government of India from time to time. It is contended that no assurance was given to the complainant by any of their officials to issue NOC to RTO. The complainant did not applied for NOC to the bank under Section 51(6) of Motor Vehicle Act. As per Section 51(7) of Motor Vehicle Act, if the financier failed to issue the certificate or fail to communicate the reason for refusal to issue certificate within 7 days of receipt of such application, definitely the certificate applied for shall be deemed to have been issued by the financier. Moreover there is no provision to issue NOC directly to the RTO by the opposite parties. It is contended that as per account kept by the opposite parties there was due of Rs. 55,769/- plus interest till date. The opposite party did not commit deficiency in service towards the complainant and the complainant is not entitled for any relief sought for in this complaint.
4. The complainant and the opposite parties have filed affidavits in lieu of evidence. The documents from the side of the complainant is marked as Ext.A1 to Ext.A4 series documents. Ext.A1 document is the copy of Certificate of Registration of the vehicle bearing number KL-10-AK-8835 owned by the complainant. Ext.A2 document is the copy of Contract carriage permit issued by Motor Vehicle Department to the vehicle of the complainant. Ext.A3 document is the copy of Account Passbook of the complainant issued by the opposite party. Ext.A4 series documents are the copies of documents in connection with the loan availed by the complainant. The documents produced by the opposite parties are marked as Ext.B1 and Ext.B2 document. Ext. B1 document is the copy of loan account statement of the complainant issued by the opposite parties showing the payment of CGTMSE made on 26/04/2014. Ext.B2 document is the copy of Master Circular on Credit Guarantee Fund Scheme (CGTMSE) for Micro and Small Enterprises (MSEs).
5. Heard both sides in detail. Perused documents and affidavits of the parties carefully. The Commission considered the following points for adjudication of the case:-
- Whether the acts of the opposite parties are amounted to deficiency in service?
- Relief and cost?
6.Point No.(i) & (ii):-
The Commission is considering the above stated points together for the sake of brevity. The complainant has argued that he had availed a loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- from the first opposite party in the year 2012 for purchasing an autorickshaw. The complainant has produced Ext.A1 document to prove the ownership of his vehicle. The opposite parties have admitted that the complainant had availed a loan and purchased the vehicle. It is argued by the complainant that due to an accident he had sustained injury resulting default in the repayment of loan. But with the help of a charitable organisation, the complainant had repaid entire loan amount in the year 2014 itself. The complainant has produced Ext. A3 document in that regard. But the opposite party did not issue NOC to cancel the hypothecation endorsed on Ext. A1 document. It is argued by the complainant that he was under the impression that the opposite party had issued NOC to cancel the hypothecation to the Motor Vehicle Department for renewal of permit of contract carriage of his vehicle. But it was revealed that the opposite party did not issue NOC to cancel the hypothecation of the vehicle even after lapse of six years of period from the date of closure of loan i.e., on 19/09/2014. The complainant has produced Ext. A3 document to show the closure of loan. Ext. A2 document would show that validity period of the permit of the vehicle was between 15/6/2017 and 14/06/2022. It is alleged by the complainant
that the opposite party did not cancel hypothecation even after closure of loan and thereby committed deficiency in service.
7. On the other hand, the opposite parties have argued that the complainant did not remit entire due amount of loan and manager of the first opposite party has no authority to close any loan account without complying required formalities and procedures laid down by RBI and Government of India. It is admitted by the opposite parties that the complainant had remitted Rs. 37,981/- on 19/09/2014, but no promise was given to the complainant with regard to issuance of NOC to cancel the hypothecation. Moreover, it is argued that the overdue amount as on 29/03/2014 was Rs. 1, 00,723.83/- and during the same period the opposite party had received Rs. 55,769/- from CGTMSE. The opposite parties have produced Ext.B1 document to prove that aspect. So the opposite party is liable to take steps to recover the amount from the complainant.
8. In the evaluation of evidence, it can be seen that the loan availed from the opposite parties was closed on 10/09/2014 by the complainant. When going through Ext.A3 document it can be seen that the first opposite party has closed the loan after receiving an amount of Rs. 37,981/- from the side of the complainant. Even though the opposite parties have disowned the closure of loan done by the Manger of the first opposite party, the Commission cannot rely upon such baseless contentions. The Commission find that sanctity of Ext.B3 document was not challenged by the opposite parties. The opposite parties are also failed to adduce evidence to show that they had taken legal steps to receive the balance due amount from the complainant in any manner. Moreover, Ext. A4 series documents would also show that after the payment made on 19/09/2014, the opposite parties were not taken any recovery steps against the complainant. It has come out in evidence that the opposite parties have demanded balance due amount only after making enquiry for issuance of NOC to cancel the hypothecation by the complainant in the year 2022. Ext. A2 document produced by the complainant would show that NOC of cancellation of hypothecation was required for renewal of permit of the vehicle only in the year 2022. So there is no chance to contact the opposite parties by the complainant during the period between 19/09/2014 and 14/06/2022. In this juncture, the Commission find that the complaint is not time barred and can be entertained by this Commission. The Commission also find that the opposite parties have failed to issue NOC to the complainant even after closure of the loan amount as per Ext. A3 document. The acts of the opposite parties are amounted to deficiency in service. The Commission also find that the complainant has suffered mental agony and inconvenience due to the deficient service of the opposite parties. So the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the complainant. The Commission find that the both opposite parties are liable to pay Rs.25,000/- to the complainant as the compensation for their deficient service. Moreover, both opposite parties are also liable to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant as cost of the proceedings. The Commission also find that the opposite parties are liable to issue NOC to the complainant to cancel the remark of hypothecation endorsed on the Registration Certificate immediately. In the light of the discussions made above, the Commission allow the complaint in the following manner:-
- The opposite parties are directed to issue No Objection Certificate to cancel the endorsement of hypothecation shown in the Certificate of Registration of the vehicle numbered as KL-10-AK-8835.
- The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 25,000/-(Rupees Twenty five thousand only) to the complainant as compensation for the sufferings of mental agony and hardship resulted due to the deficient acts of the opposite parties.
- The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) to the complainant as the cost of the proceedings.
The opposite parties shall comply this order within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order otherwise entire amount shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of this order till the date of realisation.
Dated this 30th day of April, 2024.
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to A4
Ext. A1 :Document is the copy of certificate of Registration of the vehicle bearing
number KL -10-AK-8835 owned by the complainant.
Ext. A2 : Document is the copy of contract carriage permit issued by Motor Vehicle
Department to the vehicle of the complainant.
Ext. A3 : Document is the copy of Account Passbook of the complainant issued by the
opposite party.
Ext. A4 : Series documents are the copies of documents in connection with the loan
availed by the complainant.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Ext. B1 : Document is the copy of loan account statement of the complainant issued
by the opposite parties showing the payment of CGTMSE made on
26/04/2014.
Ext.B2 : Document is the copy of master Circular on Credit Guarantee Fund Scheme
(CGTMSE) for Micro and Small Enterprises (MSES).
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
