By Smt. Saji Mathew, Member:-

The Complainant is a purchaser of a Truck No.KL 12/B 8485 for which a sum of Rs.6,70,000/- was given by the Opposite Parties as loan. The purchase on hypothecation was endorsed in the R.C. of the Truck. The terms of repayment was such that it is to be repaid in 48 EMI starting from 05.06.2008. The EMI was of Rs.17,075/-. When the Complainant entered into the terms of purchase on hypothecatiom, the 1^st Opposite Party directed the payment of EMI on demand draft taken in the name of HDFC Bank Calicut and it was sent to the 2^nd Opposite Party. The Complainant remitted the EMI and cleared the liability on 30.6.2005. More over an excess of Rs.2,075/- was remitted upon completion of instalments as per the chart. The Complainant requested the Opposite Party for No Objection Certificate for the cancellation of H.P. Endorsement in the R.C Book and also requested the Opposite Party to return the documents including blank cheques and stamp papers which were given at the time of availing loan. The 2^nd Opposite Party demanded Rs.34,000/- in addition to the entire amount paid by the Complainant. The demand of excess amount by the Opposite Party is a deficiency in service. The Complainant's permit of the vehicle expired on 18.7.2009, the request of the Complainant to the 3^rd Opposite Party is unresponded. There may be an order directing 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties :-

1. To issue No Objection Certificate for the cancellation of H.P endorsement in the R.C

   Book of the vehicle KL 12/B 8485. In case of any failure on the part of the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties the 3^rd Opposite Party may be directed to cancel the hire purchase endorsement in the R.C Book of the vehicle No.KL 12/B 8485.

2. To renew the national permit for goods carriage of Complainants vehicle bearing No.KL 12/B 8485.

3. Direct the 1^st Opposite Party to give back the 10 signed blank cheque leaves and 2 stamp papers of each worth of Rs.50/- along with cost and compensation.

2. The 1^st Opposite Party is declared exparte. The 2^nd and 3^rd Opposite Parties filed version. The version filed by the 2^nd Opposite Party in brief is as follows:- The Complainant was in use of the vehicle for commercial purpose so as to absolve him within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Acts. The claim of the Complainant that he already paid entire EMI before the date charted for the repayment is false. The instalments were not paid in time and as considerable payment of the instalments were out of time, Rs.68,433/- is still due from the Complainant. For the issuance of the clearance certificate the liability of the Complainant to the Opposite Party to be cleared. The 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties have not made any illegal demands to the Complainant. The relief prayed for are unreasonable and without any merit. The amount due from the Complainant is to be cleared. Then the Opposite Party is ready to issue clearance certificate. The complaint is to be dismissed with the compensatory cost to the 2^nd Opposite Party.

3. The 3^rd Opposite Party filed version. Sum up of the version filed is as follows:- The vehicle No. KL12/B 8485 HGV is a National Permit Lorry registered in the name of Paladan Muhammed, Paladan House, Chundakkara, Noolpuzha which is under hypothecation to HDFC Bank Ltd Malabar Palace, G.H. Road, Calicut with effect from 14.06.2004. Application for the renewal of the permit is to be in form 'PRA' and that is to be accompanied by the permit. No application was received in the office of the 3^rd Opposite Party for renewal of the permit. In the instant case the application for renewal of permit has to be submitted with the No Objection Certificate of financier which was not effected.

4. The Complainant was examined as PW1, documents were marked as Exts. A1 to A6 on the side of the Complainant. The 1^st Opposite Party was set exparte. The 2^nd Opposite Party was examined as OPW1. Exts.B1 to B3 were marked on the side of the Opposite Party. 3^rd Opposite Party adduced no oral evidence.

5. The matter to be decided are as follows:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for any relief?

6. Point No.1:- It is seen from the receipts, Ext.A2 series that an amount of Rs.8,14,455/- is paid by the Complainant before 05.06.2008. As per Ext.B1 and Ext.A3, the amount repayable is 8,19,600/-. Hence an amount of Rs.5,145/- is to be paid by the Complainant as on 05.06.2008. In the version 2^nd Opposite Party contended that the Complainant is to pay Rs.68,433.27 including all penal interest for delayed instalments. In this case, the interest for the entire loan amount of Rs.6,70,000/- is calculated at flat rate and added to the principal amount and made to instalments for the convenience of the loanee. The Opposite Party cannot insist on the payment of penal interest before the due date of last instalment. (2008 CPJ NC P-40 in Asok Leyland Finance Ltd V/S Rangilal Gupta) In this case, the Opposite Party has been demanding exorbitant amounts even after substantial payment made by the Complainant. In such a circumstance it is quit impossible for the Complainant to settle the account with the Opposite Party. Hence the point No.1 is found against the 2^nd Opposite Party.

7. Point No.2:- As the exorbitant demands from the 2^nd Opposite Party has made it impossible for the settlement of accounts, it is necessary in the interest of natural justice that the Complainant is to be declared entitled to get the NOC for the clearance of loan endorsement in the R.C. About the renewal of permit of the vehicle, a separate interim order was already made by this Forum.

Hence the complaint is partly allowed and the 2^nd Opposite Party is directed to issue No Objection Certificate in respect of the vehicle No. KL 12/B 8485 within 30 days of the receipt of this order. In case of not issuing the No Objection Certificate by the 2^nd Opposite Party, 3^rd Opposite Party is directed to cancel the loan endorsement in the R.C of the above mentioned vehicle on application of the Complainant with necessary fees if any prescribed by law even in the absence of No Objection Certificate of 2^nd Opposite Party.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 31^st May 2010.

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

A P P E N D I X

Witness for the Complainant:

PW1. M. Muhammed. Complainant.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:

OPW1 Sunil Kumar P.V. Senior Executive, Legal,

Magma Fincorp Ltd., Ernakulam.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1 Copy of Driving License.

A2 series (48 in number) Repayment Receipt.

A3. Copy of Repayment Schedule dt:12.06.2004.

A4. Copy of Certificate of Registration.

A5 series. Copy of Lawyer Notice, Postal Receipt and Acknowledgment.

A6. Copy of National Permit for Goods Carriage.

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:

B1. Statement of Accounts.

B2. Lawyer Notice. dt:08.09.2008.

B3. Copy of Reply Notice. dt:08.10.2008.