O R D E R Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member. Case of the petitioner is as follows. The complainant is a practicing lawyer at Vaikom . In April 2005, the complainant availed a car loan from the opposite party for an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs to purchase a new Maruthi ALTO car vide loan account No. LAKOM 0000379527 . The loan amount was to be repaid in 60 EMIs of Rs. 4025/- each. An EMI of Rs. 4025/- was paid at the time of availing the loan and it was adjusted to the principal amount. Out of the remaining 59 EMIs one each was to be paid on the first day of every month spanning from June 2005 to April 2010. As the mode of payment was by way of post dated Cheque, the complainant had entrusted 59 post dated Cheques, to the opposite party. EMIs were duly paid by the complainant without any default. In the year 2008, the complainant wanted to transfer his car. Hence he sent two letters, one after another, -2- to the opposite party intimating his intention to transfer the vehicle and requesting to issue no objection certificate after allowing him to close the loan by pre-payment. It was also informed that the complainant was ready to continue with the remittance of the balance EMIs provided the opposite party has no objection in issuing NOC without closing the loan. As those letters were not responded to by the opposite party, the complainant sent another letter to the opposite party’s Chennai Regional Manager requesting to issue NOC after for closing the loan. This letter also was not replied. Having been fed up with the irresponsible conduct of the opposite party, the complainant approached the opposite party’s branch office directly and obtained a letter allowing him to close the loan by pre-payment. By that letter Dtd: 6..5..2009 the complainant was asked to pay a sum of Rs. 44,544.85 for foreclosing the loan. The amount was higher than the sum total of the remaining EMIs. As the complainant was urgently in need of the NOC to transfer his vehicle, he was forced to pay foreclosure charges, late payment penalty, interest for the month. On 11..5..2009 the Complainant received NOC Dtd: 9..5..2009 in which the registration number was wrongly shown. Hence the complainant contacted the opposite party over phone but there was no response. If the vehicle could be sold on the next day of receipt of NOC, the complainant could have got a price of Rs. 2 lakhs as the vehicle had covered only 22,000 k.m only at that point of time. An intended purchaser, who offered price of 2 lakh rupees refused to purchase the car as there was mistake in the registration number in the NOC. The complainant may not be able to find out a purchaser in the future at the said price and the loss on this count is estimated at -3- Rs. 20,000/-. The complainant alleged that the opposite party has not returned the unused cheques and hire purchase agreement even after the closure of the loan. The complainant further alleged that the opposite party has not cared to address the various complaints regarding the service of the opposite party. According to the complainant the acts of the opposite party has caused much mental agony and inconvenience to him. Aggrieved by the deficiency in service on the part opposite party, the complainant filed this complaint claiming the following reliefs. i) To direct the opposite party to pay Rs. 30,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a as compensation for the loss & mental agony suffered by the complainant. ii) To direct the opposite party the cost of this proceedings. The opposite party entered appearance and filed version with the following main contentions: i) The claim that EMIs were being duly paid by the complainant is not correct. The post dated Cheque issued towards 29th EMI due on 1..10..2007 was dishonored for want of funds in account. Subsequently the said amount was paid in cash on 24..10..2007 by which over due charges amounting to Rs. 62/- was accrued in his account. ii) The opposite party never received any letter from the complainant requesting to issue NOC before closing or requesting for pre-mature closing as claimed. The issuance of NOC without closing the loan is not allowable . The request for foreclosing the loan is to be made in the concerned branch and not to the Regional Manager, Chennai. -4- iii) The claim for Rs. 44544.85 as foreclosure amount is correct . The amount to be paid on 6..5..2009 was Rs. 42,559/- . He is contractually bound to pay interest for the existing month ie. from 2..5..2009 till the date of closure 6..5..2009 amounting to Rs. 46.85 along with overdue charges of Rs. 62/- accrued in his account. The complainant paid the Rs. 44544.85 without any protest. iv) It is admitted that an in advertent mistake occurred in mentioning the vehicle No. in the NOC. The opposite party was ready to cure the defect by re-writing but the complainant was reluctant to accept a re-written NOC. He was specifically informed that issuance of fresh NOC would take time but without waiting he approached forum on 15..6..2009. On getting notice fresh NOC was issued on 22..7..2009. v) The complainant has no case that the opposite party ever encashed the remaining Cheques after closure of the loan. There is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party. Hence the opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost to them. Points for consideration are: i) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties? ii) Relief and costs. -5- Evidence consists of affidavits filed by both parties and Ext. A1 to A11 documents on the side of the petitioner and Ext. B1 document on the side of the opposite party. Point No. 1 Heard the counsels for both the parties and perused the records placed as evidence. The complainant averred that as he wanted to transfer his car he sent two letter, one after another, to the opposite party requesting to issue NOC. The opposite party counter averred that neither he nor the Chennai Regional Manager received any letter from the complainant requesting to issue NOC. The office copy of the letter dtd: 26..9..2008 issued to the ICICI Manager and the original postal receipt dtd: 26..09..2008 are produced and marked as Ext. A3 and Ext. A4 respectively. The Ext. A3 & A4 proves that, the contention of opposite party regarding the non receipt of letter from complainant is false. It is significant to note that even after receipt of the said letter the opposite parties chose not to respond. The complainant produced copy of letter dtd: 6..5..2006 issued by the opposite party to the complainant allowing him to pre-pay the car loan and it is marked as Ext. A5. The complainant further averred that as per Ext. A5 he paid Rs. 44,544.85 which was more than the sum total of all remaing EMIs under protest. On scanning Ext. A5, it is understood that foreclosure charges @ 4.41% at O/S Principal was collected from the complainant. Bank did not produce any records like agreement or other documents evidencing their authority to collect pre-payment charges @ 4.41 % at O/S Principal. Moreover there is nothing on record to show the kind of loss suffered by the opposite parties due to the fore closure of the loan amount. -6- The complainant produced a letter dtd: 1..5..2005 issued by ICICI Bank to him and it is marked as Ext. A1. In the last part of Ext. A1 a column containing three “frequently asked questions” is included. Among the three questions, the second one is “Can I pre-pay my loan?” The answer to the said question reads as under.. “Yes you can make a full pre-payment for your complete loan by intimating your ICICI bank customer care centre 30 days in advance. The outstanding loan amount, with interest and pre-payment charges can be settled at least 10 days before your next Cheque is due for clearing. The termination papers and unused Cheques will be sent to you after closure of the loan............................” The learned counsel for the complainant argued that the first part of the aforementioned answer is unfair and the act of opposite party in collecting the prepayment charges is illegal and a clear case of unfair trade practice. Whereas the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party argued that forum did not have the jurisdiction to declare a clause of the agreement to be bad in law. As argued by the learned counsel if the clause “the pre-payment charges @ 4.41 % at O/S Principal is payable at the time of foreclosure” is included in the agreement, the opposite party should have brought that agreement before the Forum. But in this instant case no such agreement containing such clause is produced before us. At the time of argument the counsel for the opposite party relied on the afore narrated method of pre-payment in Ext. A1 which keeps mum about the rate at which pre-payment charges are to be collected. Further next part of the above said answer which reads as “the termination papers and unused Cheques will be sent to you after -7- closure of the loan” is not carried out by the opposite party. The evidence on record proved beyond doubt that the opposite party failed to send the termination papers and unused Cheques to the complainant. In our view the act of opposite party in collecting pre-payment charges @ 4.41% at O/S principal is unfair and unjust and the clause concerning pre-payment charges amounts to unfair trade practice. The complainant next averred that he had entrusted 59 post dated Cheques to the opposite party and thus the EMIs were being duly paid by him without any default. According to the opposite party the post dated Cheque issued towards the 29th EMI on 01..10..2007 was dishonoured for want of funds in the account and the amount was paid on 24..10..2007, and thus overdue charges amounting to Rs. 62/- was accrued in the complainant’s account. But no scrap of paper is placed on record to prove the reason for the overdue charges of Rs. 62/-. The Bank under obligation to establish that the Cheque was dishonoured. On 06..05..2009, the complainant paid the entire outstanding loan amount which includes the interest for the future months also. Then the act of opposite parties in collecting Rs. 47/- under the head “Interest for the month” without specifying for which month and on what basis is not justifiable. The complainant submitted that on foreclosing the loan he received a NOC dtd: 9..5..2009 in which registration number of the car was wrongly shown as KL-5T 1560 instead of KL-5T-4569. According to the complainant the mistake in the NOC caused much hardships to him. The complainant next submitted that there was an intended -8- purchaser who had offered attractive price of 2 lakh rupees and who refused to purchase the car as there was mistake in the registration number in the NOC and the complainant estimated his loss on this account at Rs. 20,000/- The complainant did not substantiate his claim before the forum nor has been able to convince us that there was really a loss of Rs. 20,000/-. But then, this by itself would not show that he was not put to any loss. The opposite party admitted that an inadvertent typing mistake occurred in mentioning the vehicle number in the NOC. But fixing the blame on the clerk does not provide an escape route to the opposite party. Ultimately it is the ICICI bank which has to ensure that an errorless NOC is issued to their customer. If by mistake the opposite party indicate the incorrect registration number it is bound to have adverse effect on the mind of the complainant. In our opinion the careless and unfair acts of the opposite parties would have definitely caused mental agony and tension to the complainant. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that a sum of Rs. 3000/- would be fair and adequate compensation to the complainant. Point No. 1 is found accordingly. Point No. 2 In view of the findings in point No. 1 complaint allowed . In the result the complaint is ordered as follows: The opposite party will return the unused Cheques and hypothecation agreement to the complainant. The opposite party will also refund the illegally collected foreclosure charges, late payment penalty and interest for the month to the complainant along with a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 2,000/-. -9- This order will be complied with within one month of receipt of the order failing which the awarded sums will carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of order till realization. Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/- Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Sd/- APPENDIX Documents for the petitioner: Ext. A1: Letter dated 1..5..2005 issued by opposite party Bank to the complainant. Ext. A2: Amortization schedule issued by opposite party Bank Ext. A3: O/c of letter dated 26..09..2008 issued by the petitioner. Ext. A4: Postal receipt dated 26..09..2008 Ext. A5: Copy of letter dated 6..5..2009 Ext. A6: Copy of payment receipt dated 6..5..2009 Ext. A7: Copy of No objection certificate dated 9..5..2009 issued by ICICI Bank Ext. A8: O/c of letter dated 13..5..2009 . Ext. A9: Postal receipt dated 13..5..2009 Ext. A10 Acknowledgement card dated 14..5..2009 Ext. A11: Copy of the Registration certificate of KL 5T-4569. Document for the opposite party: Ext. B1: Certified copy of statement of accounts of loan account. By Order,
| | [HONORABLE Bindhu M Thomas] Member[HONORABLE Santhosh Kesava Nath P] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE K.N Radhakrishnan] Member | | 
