Date of filing: 04/04/2022

Judgment date: 15/05/2023

Mrs. Sashi Kala Basu, Hon’ble President

This complaint is filed by Sri Soumyajit Sen under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (referred as OPs hereinafter) namely (1) ICICI Bank Ltd, Andheri, Mumbai and (2) ICICI Bank Ltd,, Behala Branch alleging deficiency in rendering of service on the part of the opposite parties.

The case of the complainant in short is that he had taken car loan from the opposite party being loan A/c. no. LACAL00034509637 dated 22/06/2016 against his car bearing registration no. WB-02A-J7925. He paid back the entire loan amount of Rs. 3,72,632/- to the OP and the said loan was closed on 10/06/2021. By a letter dated 18/06/2021 OP bank acknowledged that the said car loan has been closed on 15/06/2021. But it was stated that the bank was unable to issue no dues certificate or no objection certificate and advised the complainant to visit the nearest branch of OP bank. The complainant thereafter visited OP 2 and requested to provide him the NOC but the same was not provided. There was exchange of several emails with the customer care division of OP bank but the no objection certificate was not issued to the complainant. So the present complaint has been filed by the complainant praying for directing the opposite parties to handover the no objection certificate to the complainant, to pay Rs. 1,75,000/- towards harassment and mental agony and to pay litigation cost of Rs. 1,00,000/-.

On perusal of the record it appears OPs did not turn up in spite of service of notice and thus the case has been heard exparte.

During the evidence complainant filed the relevant documents and also examination in chief on affidavit and ultimately argument has been advanced complainant has also filed the brief notes of argument.

So the only point requires determination is whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?

DECISION WITH REASON

On perusal of the documents filed by the complainant it is evident that he had taken car loan and admittedly the loan in respect of the said account no. LACCAL00034509637 has been paid back and there is no dues in respect of the said car loan. However, it appears from the documents filed by the complainant i.e. emails exchanged between the parties that there is another loan account being no. SPCAL00041931914 and the said loan has not been cleared by the complainant. Same is also the admitted case of the complainant that another loan is still due as he could not pay the same due to the situation of Covid – 19. According to him, his business suffered due to the said pandemic. From the letter dated 18/06/2021 sent by the customer care of the OP bank, it is evident that it has been  categorically stated even though the car loan account no. LACCAL00034509637 has been closed on June 15, 2021 but they were unable to issue no dues certificate / no objection certificate as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. Complainant has not filed either loan sanctioned letter or the copy of the agreement entered into between the parties. So since it is apparent from the own case of the complainant that the loan in respect of another account with the OP bank is still due the contention of the OP that they are unable to issue no objection certificate as per agreement cannot be ruled out. When no objection is issued, bank has to say that all loan / dues in the name of the complainant with the bank is cleared but that is not the position in this case as admittedly one of the loan accounts is still not cleared. In such a situation there cannot be the direction as prayed by the complainant upon the OPs and thus the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.

Hence

           ORDERED

CC/187/2022 is dismissed exparte.