Kerala

Alappuzha

CC/96/2007

Chandra Mohan - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Bnk Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

G.B Panicker

21 Apr 2008

ORDER


Alappuzha
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ,BAZAR P.O
consumer case(CC) No. CC/96/2007

Chandra Mohan
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

I.C.I.C.I Bnk Ltd
Manager,I.C.I.C.I Bank Ltd
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. JIMMY KORAH 2. K.Anirudhan 3. Smt;Shajitha Beevi

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

SRI. JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT) The case of the complainant is that he was taken loan for purchasing vehicle No. KL-5/H-9563. He was repaid the entire loan amount as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement even after the repeated request from the complainant the opposite parties have not given no – objection certificate for removing the endorsement of hypothecation. Complainant issued a lawyers notice on 12.2.2006, even then opposite party not cared for giving the non objection certificate. The complainant entered an agreement between another person for the sale of the said vehicle. Because of the non receipt of non objection certificate he could not sell the vehicle and he sustained loss. Hence he filed this complaint. 2. Opposite parties field version contending that the complainant has not approached the opposite parties for getting the non objection certificate. After the receipt of lawyer’s notice they had given the non objection certificate. It is the duty of the complainant to collect the no objection certificate in time. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. 3. Considering the contentions of the complainant and opposite parties this Forum raised the following issues: - Whether the complainant is entitled for claim amount and compensation from the opposite parties establishing the deficiency as averred in the complaint? 4. Complainant filed proof affidavit. Opposite party has not cross examined. Complainant produced 6 documents and they are marked as Exts. A1 to A6. 5. On going through the averments in the version it can be seen that loan was granted on 28.3.2003 and the period of repayment was 35 months. As per the averments in the complaint and proof affidavit he was requested several times for the issuance of no objection certificate. There after the complainant issued a lawyer’s notice demanding no objection certificate on 13.3.2007. This can be seen from Exts.A1 and A3. Ext.A4 is the copy of the agreement entered between the complainant and one Shobhan Kumar. It is the duty of a seller to remove all the endorsements in the registration book with regard to a financial liability, if he has conveyed the fact that the vehicle is free from all encumbrances. In this case the complainant has cleared all liabilities in time. But the opposite party has not given the no objection certificate in time. It is true that there is no evidence about the demand for no objection certificate before the issuance of lawyer’s notice. Usually no person will sent a layer’s notice without several demands in person. But in some cases party may sent lawyers notice immediately after their first demand if the other party’s response is an irresponsible manner or an irritated approach. In both circumstances such acts are deficiency in service. Ext.A6 is a document showing that complainant has suffered a loss of Rs.5000/-. 6. Opposite party is an established bank in India. They are liable to give suitable and proper service to their customers. But they were acted in an irresponsible manner. Large numbers of customers are filing complaints against ICICI Bank before this Forum alleging deficiency of service. This shows that the attitudes in providing service to the customers are to be changed. 7. In the present case the opposite party has not issued the no – objection certificate even after repeated request. But they were amenable to issue no objection certificate only on 25.7.2007. It is to be noted that lawyer’s notice was issued on 13.3.2007. Complaint was filed on 4.5.2007. Opposite parties filed vakalath on 11.6.2007. But no objection certificate was issued on 25.7.2007. That means opposite parties cared the request only after the advice of the counsel of the opposite parties. From the facts and circumstances of this case it can be seen that the acts of the opposite parties are a deficiency of service. The complainant has spent some amount for filing of this petition and issuance of lawyer’s notice. These expenses are incurred due to the acts of the opposite parties. In the result complaint allowed and we are directing the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.7500/- (Rupees seven thousand and five hundred only) as compensation for the deficiency of service. Opposite parties pay the said amount within 30 days form the date of receipt of this order. No order on cost. Complaint allowed. Pronounced in open Forum on this the 21st day of April, 2008. Sd/- SRI. JIMMY KORAH: Sd/- SRI. K. ANIRUDHAN: Sd/- SMT. N. SHAJITHA BEEVI: APPENDIX:- Evidence of the complainant:- Ext.A1 - Photo copy of the original R.C. Ex t.A2 - Postal Receipt Ext.A3 - Photo copy of the registered letter dated 13.3.2007 Ext.A4 - Vehicle Sale agreement Ext.A5 - No objection for removal of hypothecation Ext.A6 - Agreement dated 2.6.2007 Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil // True Copy // By Order Senior Superintendent To Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F. Typed by:-pr/- Compared by:-




......................JIMMY KORAH
......................K.Anirudhan
......................Smt;Shajitha Beevi