DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM  PALAKKAD

Dated this the  28^th   day of October 2017

Present   : Smt.Shiny.P.R. President

               : Smt.Suma.K.P.  Member                                 Date of filing:  09/01/2017

               : Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member

   (C.C.No.09/2017)

N.Prakash,
Maarurpanayil House,
Karkkidaamkunnu (PO) ,

Palakkad,                                 

678 601.                                                                 -        Complainant

 V/s

The Manager,

 Indus Ind Bank,                                                      -        Opposite party

Near Vijaya Bank,

Parappurath Complex,

Mannarkkad.

O R D E R

By Smt.Suma.K.P. Member,

          Brief Facts of the complaint

The above complainant is filed by the complainant for getting NOC of his vehicle from the opposite party.  The complainant states that he had purchased a TVS scooty streak from Mannarkkad and paid Rs.20,000/- towards its consideration.  For the balance amount, he obtained financial assistance from the opposite party bank.  Since he had suffered heart ailment, he could not make the payments, and there was default for three months.  Consequently he paid the entire amount and applied for the NOC from the opposite party.  But they had not issued it so far.  Hence the complaint was filed. 

The opposite party was called upon notice from the Forum.  They filed their version stating that the above complaint is not maintainable before the Forum.  They contended that the above vehicle was purchased by the complainant’s son Kurian Prasad and the complainant is only a guarantor for the above loan.  Hence he had no locus standi to file the above complainant. 

Hence the question of maintainability was heard as a preliminary issue.  It is evident from the records (documents) produced before the Fourm that the vehicle has been purchased by the complainant’s son Kurian Prasad.  The opposite party had granted finance assistance to him for the balance payment.  The complainant had also not produced any authorization from his son, to conduct the case.  Hence it can be viewed that the above complainant does not have any locus standi to conduct the above case and he will not come within the purview of the definition of ‘Consumer’ of Consumer Protection Act.  The preliminary issue is found in favour of the opposite party.  Hence the complaint is not maintainable before the Forum and is dismissed accordingly.   

Pronounced in the open court on this the 28^rd day of October 2017.

                                                                                                                               Sd/-

                      Shiny.P.R.

                      President 

                         Sd/-      

                      Suma.K.P.

                      Member

                          Sd/-

    V.P.Anantha Narayanan

                    Member