DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 83 of 26.2.2016
Decided on: 21.9.2016
Nitin Singla S/o Sh.M.D.Singla r/o H.No.2662 Urban Estate, Phase-II, Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
Hinduja Leyland Finance, Through its Director/Manager, Urban Estate, Phase-1,Near King Sweets, Patiala
…………Opposite Party
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.Dhiraj Puri,Adv. counsel for the complainant.
Opposite party ex-parte
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Sh.Nitin Singla has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as the O.P.) praying for the following reliefs:-
- To issue the NOC
- To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and tension
- To pay Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses
- Any other relief, which the Forum may deems fit.
2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that he purchased two wheeler make Maestro bearing engine No.JF32AAEGJ20089. He got the vehicle financed vide contract No.PJPBPATW000 dated 19.10.2014 from the OP. The hypothecation of the same was entered on the registration certificate of the vehicle. As per the statement of account, he paid all the installments to the OP thereby having cleared the loan amount in the month of September,2015. He requested the OP for the issuance of the NOC, so that the hypothecation on the RC could be got cancelled from the DTO, office. For this purpose, he visited the office of the OP, a number of times, but it, on one pretext or the other, kept on lingering the matter without any reasonable cause and never paid any heed to his genuine request. He also got served a legal notice upon the OP but to no effect. Thus, there is deficiency of service on the part of the OP and he suffered mental tension and agony due to the negligent act of the OP. Hence this complaint.
3. Notice of the complaint was issued to the OP, but despite service, it failed to come present and was accordingly proceeded against exparte.
4. In the exparte evidence, the learned counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence Ex.CA, the sworn affidavit of the complainant, Ex.C1 copy of retail invoice, Ex.C2 copy of temporary certificate of registration, Ex.C3 copy of two wheeler certificate-cum-policy schedule, Ex.C4 copy of certificate of registration, Ex.C5 copy of statement of account, Ex.C6 copy of legal notice dated 13.2.2016, Ex.C7, postal receipt.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
6. The complainant has contended that he purchased a two wheeler make Maestro after getting it financed for Rs.40,000/- from the OP and hypothecated the said two wheeler with the OP, which is evident from the copy of certificate of registration, Ex.C4. As per agreement, he paid all the installments and cleared the loan in the month of September,2015 .Thereafter, he requested the OP to issue him the NOC, so that he could get cancelled the hypothecation on the RC, from the DTO office, but the OP has not issued him the NOC, as a result whereof , he could not get the hypothecation cancelled on the RC, which amounts to deficiency in service. Therefore, it be directed to issue NOC and it be also directed to pay compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him alongwith litigation expenses.
7. This contention of the complainant has gone un-rebutted as the OP instead of contesting the case has preferred not to appear before this Forum.
8. From the perusal of the copy of statement of account Ex.C5, it is evident that complainant has got financed his two wheeler make Maestro having registration No.PB11BP8754 , engine No. F32AAEGJ20089 and chassis No.MBLJF32ADEGJ05487 for Rs.40,000/-with 0% interest for the period of 10 months having 10 installments. As per the said statement, the complainant had paid the entire loan amount of Rs.40,000/-, having paid the last installment, in the month of September,2015. Once the complainant has repaid the entire loan amount, it was incumbent upon the OP to issue the NOC but by not doing so, it has committed deficiency in service, which caused mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant. Therefore, the OP is not only liable for issuing the NOC but also to pay the compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.
9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the complaint and the OP is directed in the following manner:
- To issue the ‘No Objection Certificate’ to the complainant
- To pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment
- To pay Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses.
The OP is further directed to comply with the order within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of the order. The certified copies of the order be sent to the parties, free of costs under the rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
Dated:21.9.2016
