DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                Complaint No.  605

                                                Instituted on:    10.10.2016

                                                Decided on:       10.04.2017

1.     Munish Mittal aged about 31 years;

2.     Rohit Mittal aged about 30 years sons of late Shri Ashok Mittal;

3.     Nimmi Mittal wife of Late Ashok Mittal, all residents Dr. Waryam Singh Street, Nabha, Tehsil Nabha, Distt. Patiala.

                                                        …Complainants

                                Versus

1.     HDFC Bank Limited, The Lower Mall, Branch Chhoti Baradari, Tehsil & District Patiala through its Branch Manager.

2.     HDFC Bank Limited, Branch Sangrur through its Branch Manager, Kaula Park, Sangrur.

3.     HDFC Bank Limited, HDFC Bank House, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai through its Head Manager.

4.     Verma Automobiles, Royal Enfield, Ranbir College Road, Sangrur through its Authorised signatory.

                                                        ..Opposite parties.

For the complainants :       Shri G.S.Chahal, Adv.

For Opp. Party No.1&3:    Shri Rohit Jain, Adv.

For Opp. Party No.2 :       Shri SS Punia, Adv.

For Opp. Party No.4 :       Shri Sonu Markan, Adv.

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

1.             Shri Munish Mittal, Rohit Mittal and Nimmi Mittal, complainants (referred to as complainant in short) have preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that they are the legal heirs of Shri Ashok Mittal (referred to as deceased in short), which had purchased two wheeler i.e. Royal Enfield bearing registration number PB-11-BB-2926 from the OP number 4 in the year 2012 by raising a loan from OP number 2 and the OP number 2 also took cheques along with signatures of the deceased.  It is further averred that the period of instalments was from 6.6.2012 to 5.6.2015 for Rs.2550/- each. Further case of the complainant is that Shri Ashok Mittal died in January, 2013 and the complainant number 1 paid the monthly instalments with the OP number 2 and further it is stated that the OP number 2 issued a proposal on 24.3.2015 for settlement of the loan account regarding the remaining amount, which was deposited by the complainant on 26.3.2015 vide receipt number 37577797. Now, the only grievance of the complainant is that the Ops did not issue the NOC to the complainant, despite the clearance of the whole loan amount and serving a legal notice upon the Ops. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to pay compensation of Rs.40,000/- for that and also claimed litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by Ops number 1 to 3, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. On merits, it is admitted that the deceased purchased a two wheeler after raising a loan vide agreement number 21622205 and the monthly instalment was Rs.2550/- for the period of 36 months. It is admitted that the whole of the loan amount has been cleared, but the NOC could not be issued as the complainant failed to submit the death certificate of Shri Ashok Mittal. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.

3.             In reply filed by OP number 4, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has unnecessarily dragged the OP into unwanted litigation and that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant had purchased the vehicle in question. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-10 documents and affidavits and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP number 1 & 3 has produced Ex.OP1&3/1 to Ex.OP1&3/6 documents and affidavits and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 2 has produced Ex.Op2/1 affidavit and closed evidence.  The learned counsel for OP number 4 has produced Ex.Op4/1 affidavit and closed evidence.  

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite party and evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits part acceptance, for these reasons.

6.             It is an admitted fact that the complainants are the legal heirs of Shri Ashok Mittal, who had got financed a Royal Enfield motorcycle from OP number 2. It is further admitted that Shri Ashok Mittal had already died on 31.01.2013 as is evident from the copy of death certificate on record as Ex.C-9 and after his death the instalments were paid and the whole of the loan was cleared on 26.03.2015 by paying Rs.12,500/- in lump sum vide receipt number 37577797, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-4. This fact is not disputed by either of the parties. Now, the only question is why despite deposit of the whole loan amount with the Ops, the Op number 2 did not issue the NOC.   The complainant also got served a legal notice upon the Ops on 12.5.2016, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-5 and the postal receipts are Ex.C-6 to Ex.C-8. The only plea taken by the Op number 2 is that the NOC could not be issued as the complainant did not submit the death certificate of the deceased Ashok Mittal.  But, there is nothing on record to show that the Op number 2 ever demanded the death certificate of Shri Ashok Mittal (deceased).  In the circumstances, we feel that though the OP number 2 has produced on record the NOC, but the fact remains that the complainant suffered a lot due to non supply of NOC and further had to approach this Forum and by this way, he spent a lot of money and wasted his time without any reason. As such, we find it to be a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the OP number 2.

7.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint partly and direct OP number 2 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment. This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                April 10, 2017.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                                President

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                   Member                                                

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                Complaint No.  605

                                                Instituted on:    10.10.2016

                                                Decided on:       10.04.2017

26.04.2017.

1.     Munish Mittal aged about 31 years;

2.     Rohit Mittal aged about 30 years sons of late Shri Ashok Mittal;

3.     Nimmi Mittal wife of Late Ashok Mittal, all residents of Dr. Waryam Singh Street, Nabha, Tehsil Nabha, Distt. Patiala.

                                                        …Complainants

                                Versus

1.     HDFC Bank Limited, The Lower Mall, Branch Chhoti Baradari, Tehsil & District Patiala through its Branch Manager.

2.     HDFC Bank Limited, Branch Sangrur through its Branch Manager, Kaula Park, Sangrur.

3.     HDFC Bank Limited, HDFC Bank House, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai through its Head Manager.

4.     Verma Automobiles, Royal Enfield, Ranbir College Road, Sangrur through its Authorised signatory.

                                                        ..Opposite parties.

Present:            None.

1.             The above said case has been decided vide orders dated 10.04.2017. 

2.             File taken up today i.e. on 26.04.2017, as now, it has been brought to our notice that due to inadvertence it has been written in the final order dated 10.4.2017 that the opposite party number 2 had produced the NOC, whereas the NOC was produced by the OP number 1 on record, as such, due to this, the Forum imposed a fine upon OP number 2, whereas it should be against the OP number 1, as the NOC had been produced by Op number 1. The mistake seems to be bonafide. As such, it is amended accordingly  in the final order dated 10.04.2017 and it is ordered that para number 7 be read as under:-

“7.    In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint partly and direct OP number 1 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment. This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.”

3.             This order will also be  a part of the final order dated 10.04.2017. As such, a fresh copy of the order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                April 26, 2017.

(Vinod Kumar Gulati)   (Sarita Garg)       (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

          Member                Member                      President