Content as in compliant is that complainant purchased a Tractor bearing No. WB65C 1361 on 23.05.2016 at the Finance of Sriram Company Limited from M/S National Motors Malda. The loan amount was Rs.4,50,000/- whereas price of the vehicle without accessories was Rs.6,50,000/-. The monthly installment of loan was Rs.11,000/- which was collected by the officials of Sriram Finance Company Limited. The complainant insured the vehicle and use to pay premium regularly. Needless to mention complainant already paid Rs.5,98,000/- to the financer. Still then financer did not issue any N.O.C. to the complainant though he satisfied his entire loan. On the other on 28.02.2019 this Financer-OP asked more money. Still then complainant paid further Rs.16,000/- to them but no N.O.C. till yet issued. Accordingly this complainant approached before this commission for N.O.C. and compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and litigation cost.

           OP-financer contested this claim of complainant with a version that with regard to this litigation of finance behind the Tractor purchase, a criminal case is pending at C.J.M. Court Malda. Practically for purchasing of the aforesaid vehicle this complainant approached for loan amount of Rs.4,50,000/- when OP granted the loan under agreement dt.24.05.2016. Agreement value Rs. 6,35,400/- behind this loan, now this OP-financer will get Rs.5,38,464/- as on 04.02.2020. On demand this complainant issued a cheque bearing No.969299 dt.01.08.2019 which was bounced reason of which a complaint case bearing No.618C/2019 was pending before the court of C.J.M. Malda. So the complainant did not deposit the loan amount and other charges.    Hence, he is not entitled to get any N.O.C. Lastly Rs.16,000/- alleged as  paid by the complainant was not received by the OP because one Subrota is not any employee of the OP-company  who collected the amount. So the case is to be dismissed.

          In order to prove the complaint this complainant examined himself.

OP also examined one employee of them and filed some documents like as loan agreement, payment sheet of loan etc.

Decision

This commission carefully perused all the materials on the record. From the cross examination of the complainant it is cleared that the complainant issued a cheque to the financer and that was not effected to be encased due to insufficient of fund. Mainly this complainant did not filed any scrap of paper or document that he satisfied entire loan amount, on the contrary from the pay-statement of the loan amount as filed by the OP behind this vehicle, we find entire loan amount was not satisfied by any cheque. Rather bouncing of cheque and pending of a criminal case behind bounce of cheque is inferred from the trial before this commission.

 Accordingly prayer of complainant is not worthy to be granted.

Hence ordered

That, the complaint petition be and same is dismissed without cost.

Let a copy of judgment/final order be supplied to the party at a free of cost.