C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

          The case of the complainant is as follows:

          The complainant had availed a car loan from the 1^st opposite party.  The   entire loan instalments were repaid by the  complainant and requested to issue NOC to clear endorsement over the RC book of the vehicle.  When the loan was terminated in November 2007 the 1^st opposite party issued a notice intimating the comoplainant to the effect that they would issue the No Objection Certificate to the complainant after verifying the dues. And as per their communication dated 03-10-2007 with an assurance that the NOC will be sent within 30 days of the closing of the account.  Therefore the complainant contacted the branch and they directed to pay an amount of Rs. 6,026/- towards the last instalment for the closure of the loan account on 30-11-2007.  Thereby the complainant had closed the entire loan transaction through cheque.  Thereafter the complainant by his letters dated 16-01-2008 and 11-03-2008 requested the opposite parties to issue NOC.  But there was no response.  Thereby the petitioner was forced to sent lawyer notice.   To which the respondents sent a reply stating that there are amounts outstanding to the tune of Rs. 16,881/- as over due charges and to pay the same within 15 days.  By non-issuance of the NOC the complainant could not able to sell the vehicle.  Thereby the complainant had sustained a loss of Rs. 50,000/-.  The said loss is sustained by the complainant  due to the deficiency in service from the part of the opposite parties.  Therefore the complainant is before us  seeking the following directions against the opposite parties.

i.                    To issue no objection certificate of vehicle No. KL 07 AL 799 within a stipulated time and upon the respondent failed to do so direct the Regional Transport Authority, Aluva to remove the endorsement of hypothecation from the RC book forthwith.

ii.                  Direct the respondents to pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards the loss of value of the vehicle due to the non issuance of NOC in time.

iii.                To pay compensation for mental agony and litigation costs.

2. Version of the opposite parties.

The opposite parties admitted the loan transaction between the parties.  But the averment in the complaint that the entire loan instalments were repaid is not correct.   As per the loan agreement between the parties the complainant had to repay the loan in 59 equated monthly instalments of  Rs. 6,026/- each.  The EMI was supposed to be remitted on 7^th of every month and for defaults, if ay, the complainant would be liable for cheque bouncing charges and over the due charges due to the non payment or late payments of EMIs.  From the 4^th instalments onwards, the complainant’s EMI cheques got dishonoured. As per the statement of accounts on 26-11-09, Rs. 16,882/- is payable by the complainant to the opposite parties towards loan.  This aspect was intimated to the complainant vide the reply notice sent to the lawyer notice.  The opposite parties have no objection in issuing an NOC, provided the complainant pays the entire amount.

3.  The complainant and the opposite parties appeared through the counsel.  The complainant was examined as PW1.  Exts. A1 to A6 were marked on his side.  The witness for the opposite party was examined as DW1.  Exts. B1 to B3 were marked on their side.  Thereafter we have heard the respective counsel.

4. The points that arose for consideration are as follows:-

i. Whether the complainant is entitled to get NOC from the opposite parties?

ii. Compensation and costs if any

5. Points Nos. i & ii.  The case of the complainant is that even though he remitted the entire loan amount, the opposite parties did not close  the loan account.  Thereby they committed deficiency in service.  Due to their laches the complainant suffered mental agony and financial loss.

The opposite parties contented that as per the agreement between the parties EMI is to be remitted on 7^th of every month.  But from the 4^th instalment onwards the complainant’s EMI cheques got dishonoured.  Therefore the complainant is liable to pay  Rs. 16,882/- towards cheque bouncing  charges, overdue charges and penal interest towards the loan.   The opposite parties averred that as per the agreement between the parties the complainant has to be remitted the EMI on 7^th    of every month.

  During  cross examination, the complainant  deposed that the time for remittance of the EMI was extended up to 15th of every month.  Ext. A2 is the  letter dated 30-11-2007 issued by the complainant to the 2^nd opposite party, in which it is stated  that “ This is to inform you that “I am enclosing a cheque No. 389667 dated 30-11-2007, for Rs. 6026/- (Rupees six thousand and twenty six only) towards the last installments of the above mentioned car loan”.  Thereafter in  the  letter dated 03-12-2007 the opposite parties informed the complainant that

 “Please make this overdue payment immediately.  The   total amount with break-up is as follows:

1.     EMI of Rs. 6026/-

2.     Cheque – return charge of  Rs. 200/- (plus service tax)

3.     Late payment charge at the rate of 2% per month”

To which the complainant sent Ext. A3 reply dated 16-01-2008,  informing the 2^nd opposite party that he had remitted the entire loan amount by way of cheque. The witness for the opposite party deposed that without perusing the documents he cannot say  that any cheque in this case has been bounced or not.  On 11-03-2008 the complainant issued Ext. A4 letter to the 2^nd  opposite party requesting them to issue NOC at the earliest.  Thereafter after a lapse of one year the  complainant sent Ext. A5 lawyer notice to the opposite party.  The opposite parties did not send any reply to the same.  On perusal of the evidence the complainant has remitted the entire loan amount  with the opposite parties.  In view  of the aforementioned reasons we are of the opinion that the complainant has no dues with the opposite parties with regard to the transaction. Hence we have no hesitation to hold that the complainant is entitled to get No-objection certificate of his vehicle  from the opposite parties. As per the evidence we  are of the view  that the opposite parties have committed deficiency in  their service since the opposite parties failed to issue the  NOC  of the vehicle to the complainant in time.  Hence they are liable  to pay  compensation of  Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant.   We are not ordering any litigation costs since we have already ordered compensation.

6. Accordingly we partly allow the complaint and direct as follows:-

i. The opposite parties shall jointly and severally forthwith issue  No objection certificate pertaining to the complainant’s vehicle.

ii.  The opposite parties shall jointly and severally pay Rs. 2,000/-by way of compensation to the complainant, due to the deficiency in service.    

          The above said order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the opposite parties shall pay interest  @ 12% p.a. for the above amount  till realization.  

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 29^th day of July 2011.