Complainant Mukesh Kumar, vide the present complaint filed U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter for short The Act) for issuance of the necessary directions to the opposite party to issue No Due Certificate to him and not to recover any other amount from him. Opposite parties be also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as damages for unnecessary harassment caused to him.

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that he had obtained a loan of Rs.1,05,000/- from the opposite parties no.1 and 2 with the promise to return the same in monthly installment @ Rs.8670/- per month. Opposite party no.3 and 4 are its authorized dealers of opposite party no.1 and 2 and as such he is consumer of the opposite parties. He was paying the installments regularly to the opposite parties. In a month he fell ill and missed to pay the installment as his work was badly affected due to his illness. Thereafter, a settlement was effected between him and opposite party vide settlement letter whereby it was settled that total amount outstanding against him becomes Rs.1,05,000/- which will be paid by him in two installments. Ist installment will be of Rs.40,000/- and second installment will be of Rs.60,000/-. He had paid Rs.40,000/- on 24.2.2014 to the opposite party. Receipt of which was issued to him on 26.2.2014, second installment of Rs.30,000/- was paid on 27.3.2014 and third installment of Rs.35,000/- was paid vide receipt dated 29.07.2014 to the opposite party. On the payment opposite party no.3 and 4 Prem Singh and Mandeep Singh made endorsement on the backside of the receipt dated 29.4.2014 by indicating that balance against him is nil. Thereafter the opposite party never issued any notice or letter of demand to him for depositing balance outstanding amount if any. After depositing the amount of settlement nothing is due against him. But the opposite party is alleging that balance amount is still due against him and the opposite party is threatening to recover the same illegally and forcibly from him. He has many times requested to the opposite party to issue No Due Certificate to him and putting the matter to the one pretext or the other and as such there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence this complaint.

3.       Upon notice, the opposite party no.1 and 2 appeared through their counsel and filed their written version taking the preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable and the complainant is not a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. On merits, it was submitted that complainant had availed a loan of Rs.2,40,000/- from opposite party no.1 and 2 to be repaid by him as per terms and conditions of agreement. It was correct that a settlement was effected with the complainant. It has been particularly mentioned in the settlement plan dated 26.2.2014 that the complainant has to make a strict compliance to the settlement plan and in case of any default in the payment of any installment as mentioned in the schedule below the settlement plan would stand cancelled and the opposite party no.1 and 2 reserve right to charge the account of complainant with all waivers as considered and realized the complete outstanding. It was further submitted that the payment deposited by complainant was irregular as the same was not deposited as per schedule of settlement letter. The complainant has not made the payment according to the settlement plan and as such the settlement stands rescinded and the complainant has to make the payment as per the amount outstanding and not as per the settlement plan. As on 13.9.2016 an amount of Rs.1,30,177.54 is outstanding against the complainant. The opposite parties have rightly held the No Due Certificate as huge amount was outstanding. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4.        Notice issued to the opposite party no.3 had not received back. Case called several times but none had come present on behalf of opposite party no.3. Hence, opposite party no.3 was ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 8.8.2016.

5.       Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1 along with

the other documents exhibited as Ex. C2 to Ex.C10 and closed the evidence.

6.       Counsel for the opposite party no.1 and 2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Jolley Shukla Legal Advisor Ex.OP1,2/1 alongwith the other documents Ex.OP1,2/2 to Ex.OP1-2/5 and closed the evidence.

7.           We have carefully examined all the documents/evidence produced on record and have also judiciously considered and perused the arguments duly put forth by the learned counsels for both the sides along with the incidental scope of adverse inference for of some vital documents that have been somehow ignored to be produced by the contesting litigants. We observe that the prime dispute prompted at the OP Financer’s denial to issue the demanded ‘No Dues Certificate’ to the complainant who claims to have liquidated his entire Personal Loan outstanding settled at Rs.1,05,000/- through ‘3’ nos of repayments paid till 29.07.2014 as duly endorsed on the reverse of the ‘3’ nos of Repayment Receipts.

8.       However, the complainant has failed to produce any cogent evidence of the alleged loan settlement at Rs,1,05,000/- or of the other alleged past payments and in the absence of which his related depositions vide Ex.C1 amount to mere ‘bald’ statements. Even Ex.C2 the repayment schedule is undated and does not establish the quantum of original loan and/or its terms and conditions etc. The repayment receipts (Ex.C3 to Ex.C8) with endorsements at reverse also do not establish anything assistive to the complainant’s alleged claims.

9.       On the other hand, the opposite party Financer has produced the account statement Ex.OP1,2/3 along with the Simulation Report Ex.OP1,2/5 establishing the quantum of Loan as Rs.2.40 Lac with an outstanding of

Rs.1,31,405.49 p as on 08.11.2016 and the same has not been rebutted/ contested by the complainant during the present proceedings; besides the opposite party financers have also produced their affidavit Ex.OP1,2/1; the authority letter Ex.OP1,2/2 and the negotiated schedule Ex.OP1,2/4 to successfully prove their contentions. It is also not understood as to what prevented the present complainant to procure Clearance Certificate at the time of alleged liquidation on 29.07.2014 of his Loan Outstanding. Under the circumstances we do not find any infringement of the complainant’s consumer rights hence no statutory merit in the present complaint. 

10.      In the light of the all above, we do not find the hue of actionable merit (under the Act) in the present complaint and thus ORDER for its dismissal with however no orders as to its costs.

11.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.

          (Naveen Puri)

                                                                             President   

Announced:                                                    (Jagdeep Kaur)

November 28, 2016                                              Member

*MK*