Delhi

North East

CC/170/2015

Shahnawaz Khan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Family Credit Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

20 Dec 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 170/15

 

 

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Shahnawaz Khan S/o Late. Sh. Anwar Ali Khan R/o House No. D-44/1 Floor, Bhajanpura,Delhi	Complainant
	Versus
1.         2.	Family Credit Ltd. Branch Office 1101, D Mall 11th Floor, Plot No. A-1, Netaji Subhash Palace, Pitampura, Delhi-110034   Family Credit Ltd. Head Office: Plot No. 4, 7th Floor, Technopolis, Sector 5, salt Lake City, Kolkata-700091	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:        JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:

13.05.15 18.10.22 20.12.22

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

ORDER

        Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

                                                  

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant took a loan vide loan no. 1014638 from Opposite Party for a motorcycle in March 2012 whose ECS of first instalment was started from 05.04.12 and have to pay for two years. The Complainant submitted that after taking ECS of 12 months the Opposite Party company take ECS of March April 2013 in cash stating as technical issue. On 22.05.13 the Complainant wrote a letter to Opposite Party stating that he will not pay any penalty for the error occurred due to technical issue and that the time of ECS there was sufficient amount in his account. The Opposite Party replied to the letter of the Complainant stating that he had to pay the penalty. On 28.07.13 the Complainant again wrote a complaint to Opposite Party. On 07.08.13 an ECS form is issued to Complainant but of no use. On 22.05.13 the Opposite Party again filled the ECS form by the Complainant and give assurance to him that no penalty is taken from him and on 02.01.14 the Complainant visited the office of Opposite Party for issuance of no objection certificate but the officials of Opposite Party refused the same. On 21.02.14 the Complainant visited the office of Opposite Party where he is asked to pay a sum of Rs. 2,035/- as ECS bouncing charge and he showed his bank statement where he told the Opposite Party that there was sufficient amount at the time of ECS deduction so why should he pay the penalty and the Opposite Party refused to issue NOC, for which he had written a complaint to Opposite Party on 24.02.14. On 11.03.14 the Opposite Party sent letter to Complainant for issuance of NOC and there is no penalty pending. On 07.04.14, the Complainant again visited the office of Opposite Party. On 08.04.14, the Complainant sent the reminder to Opposite Party on 30.05.14. The Complainant stated that he had sent a legal notice to Opposite Party 3 times dated 02.04.2015, 23.04.15 and 11.05.15. The Complainant had visited the office of Opposite Party many times but they refused to issue the NOC. Hence, this shows deficiency on the part of Opposite Party. Complainant has prayed to direct the Opposite Party to issue the NOC and for Rs. 50,000/- for litigation charges.

Case of the Opposite Parties

2. That the Complainant approached the Opposite Party and applied for a loan facility for purchasing motorcycle. The Opposite Party acceding to the said request of the Complainant granted a loan in the sum of           Rs. 46,000/- vide Loan Agreement bearing no. 1014638 (hereinafter “Agreement”) for purchase of motorcycle make PULSAR 150 ES UG II bearing registration no. DL5SAF7900. That the Complainant having availed the aforesaid loan facility, received the delivery of the vehicle. As per the terms and conditions of the aforementioned Agreement, the aforesaid vehicle was hypothecated in favour of the Opposite Party for securing the repayment of the loan thereby creating sole and exclusive charge over the vehicle in favour of the Opposite Party.
3. That there were certain defaults/delay in payment, however, ultimately the account was closed and in this regard the Opposite Party had issued communication dated 11.03.2014 from its Kolkata office thereby stating that the loan account no.1014638 had been closed at the end of the Opposite Party. It was further stated that the No Objection Certificate shall be dispatched to New Delhi branch shortly. The Complainant was requested to visit the New Delhi branch at 1101 D Mall, 11^th Floor, Plot NO. A1, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampur, New Delhi with copy of his identity proof within 15 days from the date of receipt of the communication.
4. That in pursuance thereof the Opposite Party had duly prepared the No Objection Certificate dated 15.04.2014 and dispatched it to the Delhi Office and the Complainant was required to collect the same in person by visiting the Delhi office of the Opposite Party. That, however, the Complainant never visited the said office to collect the said NOC despite being categorically requested to do so vide communication dated 11.03.2014. That it is relevant to mention herein that the NOC was valid for a period of 95 days from the date of issue and thus lapsed.
5. That the Complainant only contacted the Delhi office of the Opposite Party when the said NOC had already lapsed. That the Complainant was informed that the NOC had already lapsed owing to his default and thus he was required to pay a nominal processing fee of Rs. 250/- for issuance of a new NOC. That, however, the Complainant refused to do so and has rather filed the present complaint.
6. That the Opposite Party had duly complied with and issued No Objection Certificate dated 15.04.14 and the same lapsed owing to the fault of the Complainant. That the Opposite Party has always been ready and willing to issue a fresh NOC, subject, however, to the Complainant complying with the necessary formalities which the Complainant has unfortunately failed to do.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Parties

7. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite      Parties wherein the Complainant has denied the objection raised by the Opposite Parties and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of Complainant

8. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the assertions made in the complaint.
9. Evidence of the Opposite Parties

In order to prove its case Opposite Partiesfiled affidavit of ShriHitesh Kumar, Senior Executive in Opposite Party, Branch office:- 1101 D Mall, 11^th Floor, Plot NO. A1, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, New Delhi, wherein he has supported the case of the Opposite Parties as mentioned in the written statement.

Arguments and conclusion

10. We have heard the Complainant. We have perused the file and the written argument filed by the Parties. The case of the Complainant is that he took a loan from Opposite Party for a motorcycle in March 2012 and he paid all instalments within the time. When he applied for NOC the same was rejected on one ground or other. The Complainant visited various times to the office of the Opposite Party to collect NOC which was refused by the Opposite Party.
11. Opposite Party admitted that loan was fully paid by the Complainant and they have issued NOC and directed the Complainant to take delivery of the same from their New Delhi branch. The Complainant never visited the said office to collect the said NOC despite being categorically advised to do the same.
12. It is further mentioned by the Opposite Party that since the NOC was valid for 95 days from the date of issue, Complainant did not turn up to collect the said NOC during 95 days and said was lapsed and then Complainant was informed that NOC already lapsed owing to his default and thus he was required to pay a nominal fee or Rs. 250/- for issuance of new NOC.
13. The NOC was issued by the Opposite Party vide order dated 11.03.14 in which complainant was advised to collect the same within 15 days from the date of receipt of the letter. In this letter, there is nowhere mentioned that NOC will lapse in 95 days. On the other side, complainant visited the Delhi office of the Opposite Party to collect the NOC on 07.04.14, the same was refused by the Delhi office and the matter was reported to Opposite Party vide letter dated 08.04.14 vide postal receipt dated 09.04.14.
14. In view of the above discussion, complaint is allowed. There was deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party for not issuing NOC to the Complainant in spite of clearing all dues against the loan. Therefore, Opposite Party is directed to issue NOC to the Complainant within one month from the receipt of this order. Opposite Party is also directed to pay an amount of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant on account of mental harassment and litigation charges along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery.
15. Order announced on 20.12.2022.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President