DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No: CC/81/2023
Date of Institution: 11.07.2023
Date of Decision: 19.07.2024
Bhupinder Singh son of Sh. Bahadur Singh resident of Mohalla Bhulerian Da Ward No.12, Bhadaur, Tehsil and District Barnala.
…Complainant
Versus
1. HDFC Bank Ltd. Branch 1st Floor, SCF 3 and 4, 22 Acre Scheme Near Mid Way Hotel, Barnala through its Branch Manager.
2. HDFC Bank Ltd., HDFC Bank House, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai -400013 through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019
Present: Sh. V.S. Duggal Adv counsel for complainant.
Sh. A.K. Jindal Adv counsel for opposite parties.
Quorum.-
1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover : President
2. Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg : Member
(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER PRESIDENT):
The complainant Kehar Singh filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against Indusland Bank, Faridkot. (in short the opposite parties).
2. The facts leading to the present complaint as stated by the complainant are that the complainant has obtained a Vehicle loan from the opposite parties for vehicle bearing Registration no. PB13BB3681 for an amount of Rs.2737946.00 from the opposite parties out of which Rs.2637032.00 was disbursed to the complainant on 21.02.2018 vide Loan Account no. 83036004 to earn his livelihood. It is alleged that now the complainant had fully paid the said loan which is clearly visible from the account statement of date 04.07.2023 of said Loan Account No. 83036004 and as such, the complainant visited the opposite parties for the issuance of the No Objection Certificate to the complainant. It is further alleged that the complainant made many requests and visits for the issuance of the No Objection Certificate to the complainant, so that the complainant can get cancel the hypothecation from the Registration Certificate of his vehicle, but the opposite parties always lingered the matter on one pretext or the other and ultimately on dated 05.07.2023, they flatly refused to accede to the request of the complainant which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-
1) The opposite parties to issue the No Due Certificate to the complainant.
2) To pay Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice of this complaint, opposite parties appeared and filed written reply by taking legal objections on the grounds that the complainant has concealed material facts from this Commission as well as from the opposite parties, therefore the complainant is not entitled to any relief. It is further alleged that the complainant has concealed the fact that he is also a Co- borrower/Guarantor in other commercial vehicle loan of BHARAT BENZ1617 vide loan No. 83879330 LOAN AMOUNT Rs. 19,01,375/- EMI Rs.41,411/-, Loan Tenure 82 in the name of Gian Singh from opposite parties Bank and he had been a defaulter in said loan account and last payment was received on dated 05-04-2020 through hold debit and total aggregate dues in mentioned loan account is Rs. 7,00,361.50. It is alleged that complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint being a willful defaulter to the opposite parties Bank. The complainant alongwith primary borrower had approached the opposite parties Bank with a request for commercial vehicle loans and had signed the loan agreement after reading the terms and conditions governing the Loan and it was agreed that complainant will pay the due amount towards his Loan Accounts on time and if there is any delay in payment of dues then the bank will be contractually and legally entitled to charge the interest on the delayed payment. It is further alleged that as per the loan agreement Clause No. 11, 12, 13 where clearly mentioned the joint and several liability of the borrower and guarantor and the loan agreement is part and parcel of the reply and read with this reply. The NOC of the vehicle under loan agreement No. 83036004 i.e. the account of the complainant is kept as collateral by way lien by the opposite parties bank as per Contract Act and agreement entered between the parties which was already conveyed to the complainant by the bank official. It is further alleged that as per records of the opposite parties bank maintained in the ordinary course of business, apart from loan No. 83036004 of Rs. 27,37,946 against vehicle bearing registration no. PB13BB3681 of commercial vehicle loan complainant availed which was cleared by the complainant and nothing is due as on date, but in another loan No. 83879330 total loan outstanding is Rs. 7,00,361.50 Paise including other expenses, charges, cess etc., as on 24-08-2023 which he is liable to pay with up to date interest and future installments.
4. On merits, it is admitted to the extent that the complainant took financial assistance from HDFC Bank for purchase of vehicle Registration no. PB-13-BB-3681 for an amount of Rs. 27,37,946/-, out of which Rs. 26,37,032 was disbursed to the complainant on dated 21.02.2018 vide loan account no.83036004. It is further alleged that complainant concealed the actual fact that he had also availed another vehicle loan from OPs vide loan bearing number 83879330 along with primary applicant Mr. Gian Singh in which huge payment is in default and Rs. 7.00,361.50 as due as on date. It is alleged that the opposite parties have acted as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement and NOC will be only issued after clearance of dues of another loan taken by complainant which is already in the knowledge of the complainant. All other allegations of the complaint are denied and prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
5. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has suffered the statement on 28.11.2023 that I do not want to file any rejoinder against the written version of opposite parties.
6. The complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of statement of account Ex.C-2, copy of RC Ex.C-3 and closed the evidence.
7. The opposite parties tendered into evidence copy of statement of account as Ex.OPS- 1 (containing 4 pages), copy of agreement for loan and guarantee as Ex.OPs-2 (containing 13 pages), copy of application form as Ex.OPs-3 (containing 2 pages), copy of application for insurance as Ex.OPS-4 (containing 6 pages), copy of customer SI Debit authorization form as Ex.OPs-5 (containing 2 pages), affidavit of Manpreet Singh as Ex.OPs-6, copy of letter as Ex.OPS-7, copy of statement of account of Gian Singh as Ex.OPs-8 (containing 6 pages), copy of adhaar card of Gian Singh as Ex.OPs-9, copy of agreement for loan and guarantee as Ex.OPs-10 (containing 14 pages), copy of Commercial Loan application form of Gian Singh as Ex.OPs-11 (containing 3 pages), copy of application for insurance of Gian Singh as Ex.OPs-12, copy of PAN Card of Bhupinder Singh as Ex. OPs-13, copy of Irrevocable power of attorney as Ex.OPS-14, copy of Restructuring Request Cum agreement for existing loan as Ex.OPs-15 (containing 13 pages) and closed the evidence.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file. Written arguments filed by the opposite parties.
9. Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant had purchased one Truck bearing registration No. PB-13BB3681 (i.e. Ex.C-3) which was hypothecated to the opposite parties vide Loan Account No. 83036004 and an amount of Rs. 26,37,032.00/- was disbursed to the complainant on 21.2.2018 and the complainant paid the above said total loan amount to the opposite parties and this fact is proved from account statement dated 4.7.2023 (as per Ex.C-2). Ld. Counsel for complainant further argued that the complainant approached the opposite parties to issue No Due Certificate but on 5.7.2023 they refused to do the same. It is argued that the complainant has a legal right to receive No Due Certificate for the purpose of getting removed Hypothecation entries from his registration certificate. It is also argued that the complainant requested many times to issue No Due Certificate but to no effect, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
10. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties argued that the complainant is also a Co- borrower/Guarantor in other commercial vehicle loan of BHARAT BENZ1617 vide loan No. 83879330 LOAN AMOUNT Rs. 19,01,375/- EMI Rs.41,411/-, Loan Tenure 82 in the name of Gian Singh from opposite parties Bank and he had been a defaulter in said loan account and last payment was received on dated 05-04-2020 through hold debit and total aggregate dues in mentioned loan account is Rs. 7,00,361.50 (as per Ex.O.Ps-8). It is further argued that complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint being a willful defaulter to the opposite parties and the complainant alongwith primary borrower had approached the opposite parties Bank with a request for commercial vehicle loans and had signed the loan agreement after reading the terms and conditions governing the Loan and it was agreed that complainant will pay the due amount towards his Loan Accounts on time and if there is any delay in payment of dues then the bank will be contractually and legally entitled to charge the interest on the delayed payment. It is further argued that as per the loan agreement Clause No. 11, 12, 13 where clearly mentioned the joint and several liability of the borrower and guarantor and the loan agreement is part and parcel of the reply. So, the NOC of the vehicle under loan agreement No. 83036004 i.e. the account of the complainant is kept as collateral by way lien by the opposite parties bank as per Contract Act and agreement entered between the parties which was already conveyed to the complainant by the bank official. It is further argued that as per records of the opposite parties bank maintained in the ordinary course of business, apart from loan No. 83036004 of Rs. 27,37,946 against vehicle bearing registration no. PB13BB3681 of commercial vehicle loan complainant availed which was cleared by the complainant and nothing is due as on date, but in another loan No. 83879330 total loan outstanding is Rs. 7,00,361.50 Paise including other expenses, charges, cess etc., as on 24-08-2023 which he is liable to pay with up to date interest and future installments.
11. In order to prove his case the complainant has placed on record copy of statement of account Ex.C-2 vide which the loan status shows as “closed” meaning thereby that the complainant has paid the total loan amount to the opposite parties and this fact is also admitted by the opposite parties in their written version. Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that despite the repayment/repaid of loan amount the opposite parties did not issue the No Due Certificate for the purpose of getting removed Hypothecation entry from his registration certificate.
12. The plea of the opposite parties is that the complainant is also a Co- borrower/Guarantor in other commercial vehicle loan of BHARAT BENZ1617 vide loan No. 83879330 LOAN AMOUNT Rs. 19,01,375/- EMI Rs.41,411/-, Loan Tenure 82 in the name of Gian Singh from opposite parties Bank and he had been a defaulter in said loan account and last payment was received on dated 05-04-2020 through hold debit and total aggregate dues in mentioned loan account is Rs. 7,00,361.50 (as per Ex.O.Ps-8). It is further the case of the opposite parties that as per the loan agreement Clause No. 11, 12, 13 the NOC of the vehicle under loan agreement No. 83036004 is kept as collateral by way lien by the opposite parties bank as per Contract Act and agreement entered between the parties. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant had already cleared/repaid the loan, despite this No Objection Certificate was not issued by the opposite parties. Ld. Counsel for the complainant relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission, New Delhi, Revision Peition No. 3571 of 2011 from Order dated 25.8.2011 in Appeal No. 2494 of 2010 of Karnataka State Consumer Commission, in case titled Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. & Anr. Vs R. Srinivasan & Anr. vide which the Hon’ble National Commission held that “Loan availed for vehicle fully repaid- District Forum directed appellants to issue NOC with compensation and costs- Order affirmed by State Commission- Revision against- Complainant has also taken other loan from petitioner bank which was not repaid by him- Blanket NOC cannot be issued- Bank is directed to issue “No Dues Certificate” in respect of vehicle in favour of complainant”. Ld. Counsel for the complainant also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission, New Delhi, Revision Petition No. 997 of 2011 against Order dated 24.1.2011 in Appeal No. 1583 of 2009 of Rajasthan State Consumer Commission, in case titled Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs Jumma Khan, vide which the Hon’ble National Commission held that “No dues certificate- Issuance of- Transaction of both loans is different- One cannot stop ‘NOC’ in respect of one vehicle even if other agreement is still continuing”. Ld. Counsel for the complainant further relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission, New Delhi, Revision Petition No. 2070 of 2010 (against Order dated 15.12.2009 in Appeal No. 391 of 2007 of State Commission, Himachal Pradesh), in case titled Magma Fincorp Limited & Anr. Vs Arshad Hussain, vide which the Hon’ble National Commission held that “Loan repaid- NOC not issued- Deficiency in service- Impugned order upheld”.
13. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission, New Delhi in the above said judgments and facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that as the opposite parties have not issued the NOC on unreasonable and unjustified grounds despite the fact that the complainant repaid the loan of the above said Truck in question. By not issuing the NOC of the vehicle in question is clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.
14. For the reasons noted above, the present complaint is partly allowed and the opposite parties are directed to issue No Objection Certificate to the complainant of the vehicle/Truck No. PB-13BB3681. The opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- on account of compensation for causing mental torture, agony and harassment suffered by the complainant and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within the period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:
19th Day of July, 2024
(Ashish Kumar Grover)
President
(Navdeep Kumar Garg)
Member
