BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.682/2014

DATED ON THIS THE 11^th September 2015

      Present:  1) Sri. H.M.Shivakumara Swamy

B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT   

    2) Smt. M.V.Bharathi                    

                                   B.Sc., LLB., -  MEMBER

                     3) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.                  

                                                          B.E., LLB.,    - MEMBER

Sri Devakumar.M.C.

Member

1.     The complainant has filed the complaint under section 12 of the C.P.Act, against the opposite party seeking a direction to issue NOC and other reliefs.

2.     The complainant availed loan from opposite party bank on 05.03.2005 and got issued 30 Nos. posted dated cheques towards repayment of the loan amount.  The complainant approached the opposite party seeking “No objection certificate (NOC)”.  On refusal to issue NOC, the complainant has filed the complaint alleging the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and sought for compensation for mental agony, harassment.

3.     The opposite party admitted the issuance of loan on 05.03.2005 and receipt of 30 post dated cheques from complainant.  The opposite party alleged that all the cheques issued by the complainant have not been honoured.  As such demanded for balance amount towards the dishonoured cheques and other charges.  Hence, contended that there is no deficiency on his part and prays for dismissal of the complaint as not maintainable.
4.     To prove the averments, both parties filed their affidavits and produced documents.  Heard the arguments and posted for orders.

5.     The following points arises for our consideration:-

1. Whether the complainant proves the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and that he is entitled for the reliefs?
2. What order?

6.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :- In the negative.

Point No.2 :- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

7.    Point No.1:-  The complainant has borrowed a sum of `30,000/- as loan, from opposite party on 05.03.2005.  The complainant agreeing to repay the loan amount in 30 EMI at `1,255/- per month and got issued 30 post dated cheques.  The EMI’s to be paid from 07.04.2005 to 07.09.2007.  Having cleared the loan amount, the complainant approached the opposite party and requested for NOC for the loan.  On refusal to issue the NOC, the complainant has filed this complaint, alleging the deficiency in service and seeking a direction and other reliefs.

8.    The opposite party admitted the receipt of 30 post dated cheques for the EMI’s at `1,255/- PM towards repayment of loan for a sum of `30,000/-.  The opposite party alleged that, the 3 cheques bearing No.278048 dated 07.08.2006, No.875478 dated 07.01.2007 and No.875479 dated 07.02.2007, drawn on M/s ING Vysya Bank, Mysore Main Branch, Mysore have remained dishonoured for the reason, difference in signature of the drawer.  Further, contended that, the complainant remained silent in spite of repeated intimation.  As such, as on 30.06.2014, the complainant was due for an amount of `7,889/- which includes 3 EMI’s and accrued interest and other charges.  Therefore, the opposite party refused to issue NOC unless the payment of due amount.  Hence, contended that there is no deficiency in service on its part and prays for dismissal of the complaint as not maintainable.

9.    The complainant ought to have approached the opposite party immediately after the payment of the entire loan amount i.e., after 07.09.2007, kept away till 30.06.2014, without obtaining NOC from opposite party.  The complainant contended that, he never received any intimation relating to dishonour of the cheques.

10. The opposite party contended that it got issued the reminder notices to the complainant, even then the complainant never turned up.  The documents produced by the opposite party, proves that it has got issued conciliation notices and reminder letters to complainant, calling upon to settle or negotiate the payment of over due amount towards the loan.  Therefore, it is concluded that the negligence is on the part of the complainant.  As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
11. Accordingly, our findings on the point No.1 is answered in negative.
12. Point No.2:- Considering the above discussion, we pass the following

:: O R D E R ::

1. The complaint is hereby dismissed.
2. Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules.