Nidhi Verma, Member

1        The complainant has filed the present complaint by invoking the provisions of Consumer Protection Act under Section 34, 35 and 36 against the opposite parties on the allegations that on 18.11.2008 the opposite party No. 1 i.e. the bank has sanctioned the loan for a sum of Rs. 29,020/- to the complainant for two wheelers vehicle. The complainant as regularly paying installments to the concerned bank i.e. opposite party No. 1 on time to time for a sum of Rs. 1,158/- per month. The complainant paid these installments to the opposite party No. 1 from 11.2.2009 to 26.2.2011. some of the receipts have not been given to the complainant because one person used to come at the door step of the complainant on the behalf of the bank to get installments. The complainant paid the above said all installments to the opposite party No. 1 from time to time but the opposite party No. 1 has not given clearance certificate (NOC) will be dispatched through post on the address given as mentioned in the complaint. On the payment of final statement, the complainant asked to the opposite party No. 1 for clearance certificate and the complainant a number of times approached and inquired about clearance certificate from opposite party No. 1 but the opposite party No. 1 lingered on the matter on one false pretest or the other and did not issue any clearance certificate to the complainant. On 20.7.2020 the complainant took CIBIL report for personal reason. The complainant got shocked after examine his CIBIL score as it shows the outstanding amount of Rs. 1,48,754/- and principal amount of Rs. 7,546/-. The complainant requested the opposite party No. 1 to issue clearance certificate but nothing happened and all efforts went in vain and opposite party No. 1 did not issue any clearance certificate to the complainant and always harassed the complainant unnecessarily. As stated above the opposite party No. 1 leveled false allegations on the complainant that the complainant could not clear the said loan amount in concerned bank and is still pending amount of Rs. 44,529/- of the opposite party No. 1. The amount due of CIBIL report for a sum of Rs. 1,48,754/- but due amount  with the opposite party No. 1 is Rs. 44,529/-. The said illegal act has damaged the CIBIL score of complainant. Thereafter, it has been ten years, the complainant paid the last installment. If the complainant has not paid the said amount then why the opposite party No. 1 had not  contacted the complainant that his loan amount is still pending. The above said act of the opposite party No. 1 has created a suspicion. The opposite party No. `1 has not given any reasonable opportunity to the complainant to present his point of view and fair hearing and not given enough information to the complainant to be able to participate meaningfully in the decision making process which is a very partial and biased behavior. After that the complainant a number of times approached the opposite party concerned branch to give the clearance certificate to the complainant as well as to clear the CIBIL reports of the complainant but the opposite party branch lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other. The complainant also served a legal notice dated 1.2.2021 to the opposite parties regarding issuance of clearance certificate but opposite party did not give any reply to the above said notice and did not issue any clearance certificate to the complainant till date. The complainant has prayed the following relieves:-

1. The opposite party No. 1 may kindly be directed to give the clearance certificate to the complainant as well as clear the amount of CIBIL report immediately.
2. The opposite party may kindly be directed to pay compensation of Rs. 30,000/- for causing harassment to the complainant
3. The opposite party may kindly be directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant.

Alongwith the complaint, the complainant has placed on record affidavit of complainant Ex. C-1,self attested copy of receipts regarding paid installment by the complainant to the opposite party No. 1 Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-18, Self attested copy of account statement Ex. C-19, Self attested copy of CIBIL reports Ex. C-20, self attested copy of Aadhar Card No. 21, Self attested copy of Legal notice and postal receipts Ex. C-22, C-23.  

2        Notice of this complaint was sent to the opposite parties and opposite party No. 1 and 2 appeared through counsel and filed written version by interalia pleadings that the present complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation and same is liable to be dismissed on this short score in limine. As per the averments made in the complaint, the complainant himself admitted that he availed two wheeler loan from the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 on dated 18.1.2008 and last EMI is to be paid by him on 5.10.2010. This fact is fully proved on record that complainant was an chronic defaulter and he committed default in making the payment of the loan EMI in time and last payment of Rs. 1,500/- was deposited with the bank on 28.2.2011, when amount of Rs. 23,714/- stands due against him. Since then he has not deposited even single penny in the loan account and remains slept over 10 years and delay of 10 years has not been explained by the complainant and fatal to the present complaint. As such, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs. The complainant has been declared as proclaimed offender by  the Hon’ble court of sh. Varun Nagpal, JMIC, Amritsar in the complaint titled HDFC Bank Ltd. Vs Jagjit singh bearing No. 3022/2010 filed by the HDFC Bank and accused has been absconding since long and not surrounded himself before the concerned court and after the period of ten years filed the present complaint on false and baseless grounds. It is prayed that directions may kindly be given to the police official as well as police personals and staff of the commission to arrest the complainant who is declared PO by the court so he be prosecuted under the law. The present complaint is gross misuse of the provisions of Consumer Protection Act abuse process of law, hence tht same is not maintainable in the present form. The complainant had not come to this commission with clean hands and guilty of suppression of true and correct facts which he is duty bound to explain. As such he is not entitled for any relief as sought in the present complaint. The present complaint is malafide and opposite party No. 1 and 2 have been dragged in to unwanted litigation. Infact there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties NO. 1 and 2 as alleged. Present complaint is liable to be dismissed being false and vexatious. The complaint is not verified in accordance with provisions of law and deserves dismissal. The complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint. The complainant is guilty of his own wrongful act and conduct and should estopped from filing the present complaint which has been filed with motive to wringgle out from debt and outstanding stands due towards him, he has filed the present complaint in order to extract money by indulging the innocent opposite parties No. 1 and 2 in to unwanted litigation. The present dispute as alleged by the complainant does not cover under the ambit of Consumer Protection Act. The present complaint is bad for want of mis joinder and non joinder of the necessary parties. As such, same is liable to be dismissed on this ground also. The present complaint is without cause of action and is liable to be dismissed. the complainant is chronic defaulter of the opposite parties No. 1 and 2. As per statement of loan account dated 16.5.2021 an amount of Rs. 46,498/-  stands due against the complainant and he is duly bound to pay the same. The complainant availed two wheeler loan from the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 and amount of Rs. 29,020/- was financed to him on 18.1.2008 that loan EMI’s are to be repaid in 23 installments of Rs. 1,558/- each, the period of the loan EMI started from 5.12.2008 and last EMI is to be paid by the complainant on 5.10.2010. Prior to disbursement of the loan complainant entered in to loan cum hypothecation agreement all the details as well as terms and conditions of the loan agreement and loan contract with regard to payment schedule (Penal charges + CBC + LPC in case of committing default in making the payment of EMI installments) was read over and duly explained to the complainant in English as well as in vernacular language i.e. in Punjabi to which he fully understand and which were acceptable to him and thereafter he himself also gone through all the terms and conditions related to loan agreement. Complainant after admitting the same to be correct and genuine signed all the loan documents and loan cum hypothecation agreement as token of its correctness with his own sweet will. The complainant is a chronic defaulter and he never paid the loan EMI in time as per the agreed schedule. As per the record maintained by the opposite parties No. 1 and 2, complainant had to deposit his loan EMI on 5^th of every calendar month, complaint never deposited his loan EMI in time as per the agreed schedule. The complainant has given 23 cheques towards the payment of loan EMI and out of them only one cheque of loan EMI honoured and 22 cheques of loan EMI stands bounced. It is highly unbelievable that complainant gave some installments to unknown person without obtaining payment receipts and no legal action has been taken by him till today against said unknown person. The complainant should not allow to blow hot and cold in same breath, complainant who has been declared PO by the court and absconding from the hands of the police officials, alleging that he paid the entire loan amount ten years back and thereafter remains slept for long period and suddenly awake up after span of ten years when he obtained CIBIL  report on 20.7.2020. Bank officials during the pendency of the complaint under Section 138 of the NIACT approached the complainant number of time and requested him to pay the loan outstanding amount, but complainant remains negligent and always make false excuses because his intention was malafide and he was not willing to repay the loan amount borrowed by him from the bank and when complainant came to know that he has been declared PO by the court he absconded from his place of residence. As per loan agreement complainant is duty bound to pay the balance loan EMIs, CBC, LPC alongwith penal charges as shown in the statement of account. Suspicion is on the part of the complainant who is absconding from the court since long and never willing to clear his loan outstanding. The complainant never willing to repay the entire loan amount at any point of time, the loan EMIs which he deposited that were also deposited due to consistence persistence of the bank officials, but same was paid by the complainant according to his own convenience and not according to the date fixed as per schedule agreed at the time and not according to the date fixed as per schedule agreed at the time of disbursement of the loan.  The complainant tried to fill up the locuna and he alleged that he served legal notice dated 1.2.2021 regarding NOC is of no use, carries no value in the eyes of law and present complaint is barred by limitation and liable to be dismissed. The opposite parties No. 1 and 2 have denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same. The opposite parties No. 1 and 2 have placed on record affidavit or Manager of HDFC Bank Ex. OP1,2/1, Self attested copy of resolution dated 19.10.2019 Ex. OP1,2/2, Self attested copy of the loan application Ex. OP1,2/3, self attested copy of  statement of account Ex. OP1,2/4, self attested copy of loan agreement Ex. OP1,2/5, Self attested copy of schedule Ex. OP1,2/6, self attested copy of complaint Ex. OP1,2/7,  Self attested copy of PO order Ex. OP1,2/8.

3        The opposite party No. 3 appeared through counsel and filed written version by interalia pleadings that the complaint is not maintainable against the opposite party No. 3 on the grounds that this commission does not have the required jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the issues/ grounds raised by the complainant in the said complaint against the opposite party No. 3. The opposite party No. 3 functions as a credit information company under the provisions of CICRA read with the Credit Information Companies Rules, 2006 (the ‘Rules’) and the Credit Information Companies Regulations, 2006 (the ‘Regulations’) made under CICRA. Opposite party No. 3 engages in the business of storing, retrieving, compiling, collecting, collecting, processing and maintaining a data base of credit information relating to both individuals and entries of all types  whether incorporated or not, for the use of banks, financial institutions etc. dealing with the distribution of credit submitted to the opposite party No. 3 by banks/ financial institutions (‘credit institutions’) furnishing of this credit information is strictly to a closed user group of members, individuals and the specified users as permitted / required under the provisions of CICRA and the Rule and Regulation made thereunder. There are specific provisions under CICRA, namely (a) Section 18 of CICRA which governs the 

18. Settlement of dispute.—

(1)     Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, if any dispute arises amongst, credit information companies, credit institutions, borrowers and clients on matters relating to business of credit information and for which no remedy has been provided under this Act, such disputes shall be settled by conciliation or arbitration as provided in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), as if the parties to the dispute have consented in writing for determination of such dispute by conciliation or arbitration and provisions of that Act shall apply accordingly.

(2)     Where a dispute has been referred to arbitration under sub-section  (1), the same shall be settled or decided,—

(a)     by the arbitrator to be appointed by the Reserve Bank;

(b)     Within three months of making a reference by the parties to the dispute: Provided that the arbitrator may, after recording the reasons therefor, extend the said period up to a maximum period of six months: Provided further that, in an appropriate case or cases, the Reserve Bank may, if it considers necessary to do so (reasons to be recorded in writing), direct the parties to the dispute to appoint an arbitrator in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), for settlement of their dispute in accordance with the provisions of that Act.

(3) Save as otherwise provided under this Act, the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall apply to all arbitration under this Act as if the proceedings for arbitration were referred for settlement or decision under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

31. Bar of jurisdiction.—

No court or authority shall have, or be entitled to exercise, any jurisdiction, powers or authority, except the Supreme Court and a High Court exercising jurisdiction under articles 32, 226 and 227 of the Constitution, in relation to the matters referred to in sections 4, 5, 6, 7 and 18.

In terms of Section 18 of CICRA, it is clear that notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, any dispute on matters relating to the business of credit information is required to be settled solely by arbitration or conciliation under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and not by way of a consumer complaint. The use of the phrase “notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force” in Section 18 of CICRA is a clear indication that CICRA being a special and subsequent legislation (enacted in 2005), shall prevail over the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act (enacted in 1986), on matters wherein both legislations are deemed to concurrently apply. Hence, on this reason itself, the said complaint is liable to be dismissed. Furthermore, even assuming that both the Consumer protection Act and CICRA are both special laws, it is settled law that a later enactment with a non-obstante clause will prevail over the former enactment, unless the former enactment is proven to be more special than the later enactment. Consequently, where consumers have raised claims against CICs in respect of their functions under the CICRA, the provisions of Section 18 of the CICRA (which is a later enactment with a non-obstante clause), should prevail over other provisions of law, including the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, given that Section 18 of the CICRA specifically deals with disputes with borrowers and other clients in respect of the business of credit information and Consumer Protection Act deals with all grievances that consumers have faced as service recipients. In terms of Section 31 of CICRA, no court or authority including the District consumer Redressal Commission shall have or be entitled to exercise any jurisdiction, power or authority save and except the Supreme Court or the High Court exercising its jurisdiction under Articles 21, 226 and 227 of Constitution in relation to the matters referred under Section 18 of CICRA. The jurisdiction of this commission to hear the said complaint against the opposite party No. 3 is barred. In view, thereof, it is humbly prayed that this commission direct the complainant to approach the appropriate form as prescribed under CICRA. There is no privity of contract between the complainant and opposite party No. 3. The complainant is not a consumer of opposite party No. 3 as defined under Section 2(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 since the complainant has not bought any goods for consideration and / or availed any services for consideration from opposite party No. 3. There has never been any kind of monetary transaction between the complainant and the opposite party No. 3. Therefore, there is no question of any deferred payments to the complainant by the opposite party No. 3. The opposite party No. 3 does not carry on business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain in Tarn Taran or has any cause of action, as alleged or otherwise, arisen against opposite party No. 3 within the territorial jurisdiction of this commission. The opposite party No. 3 is a Credit Information Company whose working is governed by the provisions of CICRA and the rules and the Regulations made thereunder. The functioning of opposite party No. 3 is such that the same cannot be held to be liable for any harm caused to the complainant in view of which it is evident that opposite party No. 3 is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the instant case and hence any claim qua opposite party No. 3 is to be dismissed and the opposite party No. 3 be deleted as an opposite party to the said complaint. The relevant provisions of CICRA, Rules, Regulations and the functioning of opposite party No. 3 is enumerated below:-

1. Credit information is the credit history of previous and current borrowing(s) / credit (s) availed by both individual and entities like partnership firms, proprietary concerns, private and public limited companies, etc. this information is applicable on all loan products, credit cards, etc. CICRA allows the creation of credit information companies which will enable banks/ credit institutions that are members of the credit information companies to readily access the full credit history of any borrower/ credit complainant. Opposite party No. 3 issues the Credit information Report which contains aggregated information of a respective individual/ entity that is submitted by representative credit institution. CIR is in a standard format and opposite party No. 3 does not create information or provide inputs thereon of its own. As explained above,  the opposite party No. 3 helps the credit guarantors / member credit institutions to access the CIR by which a complete history of the credit complainant’s credit record spread over different institutions is available to credit guarantors. The CIR merely reflects the information submitted to the opposite party No. 3 by its member credit institutions (being banks and financial institutions) as required under the CICRA and Rules &  Regulations made thereunder. It is pertinent to note that Opposite Party No. 3 only acts as a repository of credit information.

ii.       Any rectification in the database of credit information or change in the credit information can only be made in accordance with the provisions of Section 21(3) of the CICRA which states that a credit information company like Opposite Party No. 3 can make a correction, deletion or addition of the credit information only after such correction, deletion or addition has been certified as correct by the concerned credit institution. Section 21(3) of CICRA is reproduces herein below for ease of reference:-

“...If a credit information company or specified user or credit institution in possession or control of the credit information, has not updated the information maintained by it, a borrower or client may request all or any of them to update the information; whether by making an appropriate correction, or addition or otherwise, and on such request the credit information company or the specified user or the credit institution, as the case may be, shall take appropriate steps to update the credit information within thirty days after being requested to do so: Provided that the credit information company and the specified user shall make the correction, deletion or addition in the credit information only after such correction, deletion or addition has been certified as correct by the concerned credit institution: Provided further that no such correction, deletion or addition shall be made in the credit information if any dispute relating to such correction, deletion or addition is pending before any arbitrator or tribunal or court and in cases where such dispute is pending, the entries in the books of the concerned credit institution shall be taken into account for the purpose of credit information..."

This clearly implying that only a credit institution (i.e. bank and financial institution) has the right to rectify, modify its respective credit information.

(iii)    Thus, in terms of the provisions of CICRA, Opposite Party No. 3 cannot unilaterally make any correction to the credit information of the Complainant. As stated earlier, Opposite Party No. 3 only collects credit information from its member credit institutions, collates the information received from several institutions and furnishes a credit report without any inputs of its own. The credit information appearing in the credit information report furnished by Opposite Party No. 3 is the aggregate of the information submitted to it. Any unilateral correction of the credit information as sought by the Complainant would have rendered Opposite Party No. 3 liable for Opposite Party No. 3 to be penalised under the CICRA.

(iv)    Opposite Party No. 3 is not responsible for the accuracy, completeness and veracity of any of the information reported/submitted by the member credit institutions. Such responsibility lies with the reporting institutions as per CICRA and the Rules & Regulations made thereunder. It is further submitted that when information/data as required under the CICRA is submitted by a member credit institution, Opposite Party No. 3 has no reason to believe that any information therein is incorrect.

In light of the role and functions of Opposite Party No. 3, the submissions, statutory provisions highlighted above and the factual submissions made hereinabove, Opposite Party No. 3 is neither a proper nor a necessary party and it is not required for Opposite Party No. 3 to be a party to the said Complaint for granting any reliefs as prayed for by the Complainant. No prejudice of whatsoever nature will be caused to the Complainant if the Opposite Party No. 3 ceases to be a party to the said Complaint since in the event that the Complainant succeeds in the said Complaint and Opposite Party No. 1 & 2 directs Opposite Party No. 3 to make any changes in the credit information, the Opposite Party No. 3 is under a statutory obligation to follow the same. Hence, this Complaint is not maintainable against Opposite Party No. 3 and has to be dismissed on this ground alone. The opposite party No. 3 has denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same. Alongwith the written version, the opposite party No. 3 has placed on record affidavit of Pankaj Patil Ex. OP3/A, copy of response received from OP No. 1 and 2 Ex. A.

4        We have heard the Ld. counsel for the complainant and opposite party No. 1, 2 and have carefully gone through the record placed on the file.

5        In the present complaint, on dated 18.11.2008 the opposite party No. 1 has sanctioned the loan of Rupees 29,020/- to the complainant for two Wheelers vehicle. As per complainant, he was regularly paying different installments to the concerned bank on time to time for a sum of rupees 1558/- per month.  According to the complainant he paid these installments to the opposite party No 1 from 11^th Feb 2009 to 26^th Feb 2011 and some of the receipts have not given to the complainant because one person used to come at the door step of the complainant on the behalf of the bank to get installments. He paid all the installments to the O.P No.1 but the opposite party No. 1 has not given clearance certificate to the complainant.  It is pertinent to mention here that on dated 20^th July 2020 the complainant took CIBIL report for personal reason. The complainant got shocked after examining his CIBIL score as it shows the outstanding amount of Rs.1,48,754/- and principal amount of Rs. 7546/-. The complainant requested the opposite party NO. 1 to issue clearance certificate but nothing happened and all efforts went in vain and the opposite parties did not issue any clearance certificate to the complainant.  The complainant also served the legal notice dated 1st Feb 2021 to the opposite parties regarding to issue clearance certificate but the opposite parties did not give any reply to the above said notice and did not issue any clearance certificate to the complainant till date.

6        O.P No.1 & 2 stated in their written version that, as per the averments made in the complaint, the complainant himself admitted that he availed two Wheeler loan from the opposite party No. 1 and 2 on dated 18^th November 2008 and last EMI is to be paid by him on dated 5^th October 2010.  This fact is also fully proved on record that complainant was the chronic defaulter and he committed default in making the payment of the loan EMI in time and last payment of Rs. 1500/- was deposited with the bank on 28/02/11 when the amount of rupees 23,714 stands due against him.  As per the record maintained by the O.Ps complainant had to deposit his loan EMI on 5^th of every calendar month, complainant never deposited his loan EMI in time as per the agreed schedule.  Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 further contended that complainant given 23 cheques toward the payment of loan EMI and out of them only one cheque of loan EMI honoured and 22 cheque of loan EMI stand bounced. As per the statement of account dated 18.05.2021 an amount of Rs .46,498/- stands due towards the complainant which includes ( balance EMI + OEI + CBC) And complainant is liable to pay the entire outstanding amount.  It is further submitted that NOC could not be issued until total loan default amount is cleared by the complainant as mentioned above. It is further submitted that bank officials during the pendency of the complaint under section 138 of the NIACT Approached the complainant number of time and requested him to pay the loan outstanding amount but complainant remain negligent and always make false excuses because his intention was malafide and he was not willing to repay the loan amount borrowed by him from the bank and when complainant came to know that he has been declared PO by the court he absconded from his place of residence.

7        O.P No.3 stated in their written version that, in terms of the provision of CICRA  ,Opposite party No.3 cannot unilaterally make any correction to the credit information of the complainant.  O.P No 3 0nly collect credit information from its member credit institutions , collates the information received from several institutions and furnishes a credit report without any inputs of its own. The credit information appearing in the credit information report furnished by opposite party No.3 is the aggregate of the information submitted to it.  O.P No.3 is not responsible for the accuracy, completeness and veracity of any of the information submitted by the member credit institutions. Opposite party No.3 is neither a proper nor a necessary party and it is not required for O.P No.3 to be a party to the said complaint for granting any reliefs as prayed for by the complainant.

8        As a result of the above discussion we are of the considered view that ,At the time of sanction the loan , O.P No. 1 collected 23 cheques towards the payment of loan EMI and out of them only one cheque of loan EMI honoured and 22 cheque of loan EMI stands bounced. The complainant attached the receipts of the loan EMI from dated 11.02.2009 to 26.02.2011 (Ex.C2 to C18)  which are 17 receipts and as per O.Ps the loan EMI are to be repaid in 23 installments of Rs 1558/- on 5^th of every calender month , but the complainant failed to pay same on 5th of every calender month and paid instead of some other dates of months. Moreover, failed to pay the loan EMI regularly as January 2010, April 2010, May 2010, August 2010, November 2010 receipts are not attached herein. Further, as per the complainant one person used to come at the door step of the complainant on the behalf of bank to get installments and those receipts have not given to the complainant but it is highly unbelievable that complainant given some installments to unknown person without obtaining payment receipts and no legal action has been taken by him till date against said unknown person. Hence, the complainant has failed to place on record any such documents in support of his contentions that he paid the full and final payments of loan amount .

9        The last payment of Rs 1500/- was deposited with the bank on 28.02.2011 , when amount of Rs.23,714/- stands due against him. Since then he has not deposited even single penny in the loan account and remains slept over 10years and delay of 10years has not been explained by the complainant. Further, the complainant has been declared an proclaimed offender by the Hon’ble court of Sh. Varun Nagpal, JMIC, Amritsar in the complaint Titled “HDFC Bank Ltd versus Jagjit Singh “ , bearing No.3022/2010, Filed by the HDFC Bank ( Ex.Op1,2/7) and accused has been absconding since long and not surrendered himself before the concerned court and after the period of 10 years filed the present complaint. Further, the present complaint is not maintainable because the same has not been filed within two years from the cause of action. This view of law was reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment reported as “V.N. Shrikhande (Dr.) v. Anita Sena Consumer Fernandes” 2011 CTJ 1 (SUPREME COURT) (CP). It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as under:-

“Section 24A(1) contains a negative legislative mandate against admission of a complaint which has been filed after 2 years from the date of accrual of cause of action. In other words, the consumer forums do not have the jurisdiction to entertain a complaint if the same is not filed within 2 years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. This power is required to be exercised after giving opportunity of hearing to the complainant, who can seek condonation of delay under Section 24A(2) by showing that there was sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the period prescribed under Section 24A(1). If the complaint is per se barred by time and the complainant does not seek condonation of delay under Section 24A(2), the consumer forums will have no option but to dismiss the same. Reference in this connection can usefully be made to the recent judgments in State Bank of India v. B.S. Agricultural Industries (I), 2009 CTJ 481 (SC)(CP)=(2009) 5 SCC 121 and Kandimalla Raghavaiah and Company v. National Insurance Company and  another, 2009 CTJ 951 (SC)(CP)=(2009) 7 SCC 768.”

10      Therefore, the OP.1 & 2 did not commit any deficiency of service by withholding the ‘No Objection Certificate’ for want of outstanding balance and Cheque bounce charges. There is no evidence finds place on the record that the complainant had paid the full and final loan amount. Therefore, we are of the view that the complainant has failed to clear the loan amount and requests for the NOC and other related document which are not acceptable.  The complainant has failed to establish any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

11      In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is dismissed with no order as costs.  Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Commission and due to COVID-19. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties as per rules. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Open Commission.

26.03.2024