Dt. 29.04.16

JAGANNATH  BAG HON’BLE MEMBER

          The present appeal is directed against the Order, dated 25.08.2014 , passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit-I , Kolkata, in Complaint Case No. CC/14/519, whereby the complaint was rejected at the admission stage .  

        The Complainant’s case, in brief , was as follows:

         The Complainant took a loan of Rs. 3,06,473/- from the OP which was to be repaid in Equal Monthly Installments of Rs.7297/- each . The installment of the loan repayment  commenced from 01.02.2011 and was due to be completed on 01.11.2013 . The payment, as per the Complainant, was completed and a letter was issued to the OP on 23.04.2014 with a request to issue the clearance certificate. But, in spite of receiving the letter, such certificate was not issued. A reminder was sent on 06.05.2014. Another sum of Rs. 5,042/- was demanded by the OP and the same was also  paid. Still the OP failed and neglected to issue the clearance certificate. It was gathered from the Bank statement that the overdue amount which was claimed from the Complainant was false. The Complainant refrained from plying his vehicle as NOC in the matter of clearance of loan was not issued and thereby  incurred  a loss of Rs.15,000/- per month. Alleging unfair trade practice on the part of the OP in not issuing the clearance certificate , the Complainant filed the consumer complaint before the Ld. Forum below.

          Ld. Forum below having heard the Ld. Advocate of the Complainant and upon perusal of the documents observed that the Complainant filed no  documents in support of the loss in his business. Ld. Forum also observed that the Complainant failed to substantiate his claim about clearing of all EMIs in time. Again, no document in support of his  contention that he got receipt dated 10.03.14 showing full and final settlement was submitted by the Complainant. Accordingly, the complaint was not admitted.

          The Appellant / Complainant having been aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the Ld. Forum below has come up before this Commission with a prayer for direction to set aside the impugned order.

          The  Respondent remained absent on the date of hearing of the appeal and as such, the appeal was heard ex parte .

          Ld. Advocate for the Appellant submitted that the impugned order has been passed without application of judicial mind and without taking into consideration that the Respondent / OP in spite  of full and final payment of EMIs has not  issued the clearance certificate, i.e., ‘no demand certificate’ in respect of the vehicle in question.  Ld. Forum below did not take  note of annexure –D to the petition of complaint and did not consider the statements issued by the OP for the party as enclosed with the petition of complaint. The Complainant should have been given opportunity to produce evidence in support of his contention before the Ld. Forum below in due course of adjudication  and the OP/ Respondent should have been asked to submit their version in regard to the averments made by the Appellant/Complainant. In the said situation, the impugned order deserves to be set aside with opportunity to the Appellant / Complainant to submit evidence including all relevant documents before the Ld. Forum below for the interest of justice.

          We have heard the Ld. Advocate appearing for the Appellant and perused the Memorandum of appeal together with copies of the impugned order, the petition of complaint and other documents filed by the Appellant/Complainant including the letters dated 23.04.2014 and 06.05.2014 addressed to the OP  for clearance certificate in respect of his vehicle.

          The moot point of the complaint was that in spite of payment of EMIs  the OP / Respondent did not issue clearance certificate in the  absence of which the Appellant /Complainant could not ply the vehicle on road. As a result he suffered loss of business .

          It is true that no document in support of his  averment that he suffered loss of business , was submitted along with the petition of complaint . At the same time it is true that the OP / Respondent was not given any direction to file their stand in the matter of non-issue of the clearance certificate. Rejection of the complaint at the admission stage on the ground of non-submission of documents which have evidentiary value does not seem to be fair as the subject of complaint is more important at the admission stage and evidence may be called for during adjudication process. . In the present case,  the complaint has not been admitted on the ground that the Complainant did not submit necessary documents in support of his averments. In our considered view the OP should have been asked for filing W.V. and thereafter the Complainant could be given opportunity of filing evidence from his side. Such opportunity not being given to the Complainant, Ld. Forum’s order does not stand justified. Accordingly, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the appeal may be allowed. The appeal succeeds. Hence,

 Ordered

That the appeal be and the same is allowed ex parte against the Respondent. The case is referred  back to the Ld. Forum below for due adjudication .  The petition of complaint shall be deemed to have been admitted. Both parties to appear before the Ld. Forum below on 27.05.2016 for necessary order in proceeding  with the complaint case. There shall be no order as to cost.