ORDER

 Sri A.K.Patra,President

1. Complainant remains absent consistently on the date fixed for hearing. In view of Section 38(3) of C.P.Act 2019 case record is taken up to decide on merits.
2. Heard, the learned counsel for the Ops present .Perused the material available on record. We have our thoughtful consideration on the contention of both the parties & documents placed on the record. .
3. The captioned Consumer Complaint is filed by the complainant named above alleging negligence, deficiency in giving service & unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties for denial of issuance of “NO DUE CERTIFICATE”/NOC with respect to the financed vehicle even after payment of entire loan amount.  
4. The Complainant has prayed for the following relief(s) :- For an order directing the Ops to issue “NO DUE CERTIFICATE” in favour of the complainant with respect to Loan Account No.8359680000028 and to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost. And, further prayed for grant of all other relief(s) as this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper in this facts & circumstances of this complaint.
5. The factual matrix leading to the case of the complainant as emerged from the case record is that, the complainant has availed financial assistance of an amount of Rs.60,515/-from the Ops vide Loan Account No.8359680000028 for purchasing of  a  Honda Shine Bike, repayable in 30 Monthly Installment @ 2,760/- starts from September 2019 to August 2021. The complainant has timely paid all the EMIs in cash to the Ops at Bhawanipatna branch office and obtained money receipt but the Ops have not issued “No Due Certificate” to the complainant and arbitrary demanding huge sums towards overdue charges which caused financial hardship & mental agony to the complainant. Hence, this complainant.  
6. To substantiate his  claim the complainant has filed  the self attested true photo copy of the following documents supported by an affidavit of the complainant:- (i)Account statement from 01 Feb2018 to 15 Feb 2022 of Loan Account No.8359680000028. (ii).Money receipt dt.19/02/2022 for an amount of Rs.15,000/-vide receipt no. 22835908189561.(ii).Money receipt dt.17/03/2022 for an amount of Rs.3,000/-vide receipt no. 22835908359463.
7. On being notice the OP appeared through their learned counsel Mr.M.R.Mohanty  and  filed written version denying allegation of deficient service & unfair trade practice. However, admitted the facts that, the Ops have provided credit facilities for an amount of Rs. 60,515/-vide loan A/c No.83595180000028 on 31.07.2019  to the complainant for purchasing of  one Honda Sine Drum motor cycle and as per the term of the loan agreement,  the loan with interest is  payable in 31 numbers of  EMIs @ Rs.2760/- on or before 7^th day of each month. The repayment schedule was properly served to the complainant. The repayment was started from September, 2019 and final 31^st installment is to be paid @ Rs.3,590/- on or before 7^th day of Feb, 020. The complainant also availed moratorium in the year 2020.He was agreed for repayment of the loan on time and also agreed to pay delay charge and cheque bounce , cheque swap charge and further agreed to pay tax as applicable and further agreed to refer dispute, if any arose ,to decide at Bhubaneswar jurisdiction. It is further contended that, the complainant has failed to pay EMIs on time for which huge outstanding amount remaining as arrear. The late payment fees is charges @ 30% per annum and cheque bounce charge of Rs.500/- and cheque swap charges is Rs.300/- is payable by the complainant. The complainant has defaulted in repayment for early quarter of 2020 and for that, penalty charges and other charges are included and the outstanding hike  up to Rs.5,096/- as on 24.07.2-024 along with future  chares applicable to this present case.. Further stated that, the complainant has never approached the OPs for issue of NOC with respect to the said loan account .Rather, the Ops are ready to issue NOC with respect to the loan on receiving of outstanding amount of Rs.5,096/- there due against the complainant. The Ops never adopted any unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and that, there is no cause of action arose to file this complaint. Rather, This complaint is filed with an ulterior motive only to harass the OPs and to avoid repayment of outstanding loan amount as such liable to be dismissed with cost.
8.  To substantiate their claim the Ops have filed the true copy of statement of account vide loan account No.83595180000028  from 09.07.2019 to 05.07.2022 showing total paid amount Rs.80014.88 and total unpaid due of Rs.5160.48.
9. After perusal of the complaint petition, written version and all the documents relied on by both the parties placed on the record, the points for consideration before this Commission are that:- (i)whether the complainant is consumer of the OPs? (ii) Whether there is any unfair trade practice or negligence & deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party Finance Company for non issue of “NOC” with respect to the subject financed vehicle and (iii) whether the complainant is entitled for the relief claimed?
10. The fact that, the complainant has availed financial assistance of Rs.60,515/-vide Loan A/c No. 83595180000028 from the Ops for purchasing of one Honda Sine Drum motor cycle and, the loan with interest is repayable in 31 numbers of  EMIs is not disputed as such this Commission may safely hold that, the complainant is a consumer of the OPs. Issue No. I answered accordingly.
11. Here in this case, the complainant alleged that, Ops have not issued “ No Due Certificate” with respect to the loan account even after repayment of all EMIs and other dues for  which he suffered  financial hardship and mental agony .  On the other hand the Ops have claimed total unpaid dues of Rs.5160.48 and expressed his readiness to issue “ No Due Certificate”  to the complainant on receiving of the said unpaid due there is no cause of action arose to file this complaint..
12. As per Sec.38(6) of C.P.Act,2019 every complaint shall be heard by the District Commission on the basis of affidavit and documentary evidence placed on record ; as such it casts an obligation on the District Commission to decide the complaint on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant and the service provider/seller, irrespective of whether the service provider/seller adduced evidence or not. The decision of the District Commission has to be based on evidence relied upon by the complainant. The onus thus is on the complainant making allegation.
13. No evidence on affidavit as prescribed in C.P.Act 2019 is adduced by the complainant. Here the complainant has failed to adduce any cogent evidence to substantiate his claim.
14. The Ops have proved the contention of their written version by filling an additional affidavit of one Bidit Guha ,presently working as their litigation Manager ,averment of which are corroborating with averments of their written version remain un-rebutted. 
15. The  undisputed account statement from 09.07.2019 to 05.07.2022 of  loan account vide No.83595180000028  placed on the record by the OPs remained unchallenged which clearly shows that, the complainant has paid Rs.80,014.88 and he has to pay Rs.5,160.48 to the Ops towards full & final settlement of the said loan account . We found much weight on the submission of the learned counsel for the Ops that , this complaint is filed only to avoid repayment of the loan & to escape from seizer of the financed vehicle and there is no question of any cause of action arose for this complain
16. Law is well settled that, complainant is to prove deficiency in service as alleged against the Ops but here the complainant admitted the facts that, he availed loan from the Op for purchasing of motor cycle repayable with interest failed to prove repayment of entire loan due against him as claimed by the Ops .So also failed to proved that the Ops have ever denied to issue No Due Certificate on repayment of entire loan amount .Nothing negligence & deficiency of service or unfair trade practice is proved against the Ops as alleged in his complainant petition. Issue No. II is answered accordingly.
17. The borrower /complainant is duty bound to repay the loan received from the OPs as per the terms of the loan agreement .We are of the opinion that, there is nothing Unfair Trade Practice or deficient service on the part of the OPs for non issue of “NOC” with respect the subject financed vehicle when entire loan due is not paid by the borrower.
18.  Based on above facts & circumstances and settled principle of law, we are of the opinion that, this complaint sans merits as such the complainant is not entitled for the relief(s) as claimed. Issue No. iii answered accordingly. Hence it is ordered.

ORDER

This consumer complaint sans merits is dismissed against the      OPs on contest. However,  no order as to cost & compensation.

 Dictated and corrected by me.

Sd/-

      President.

                         I   agree.

      Sd/-

    Member

 Pronounced in open forum today on this 20^th November 2024 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

The pending application if any is also stands disposed off accordingly.

  Free copy of this order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download the same from the Confonet to treat the same as copy of the order receipt from this Commission. Order accordingly.