Complainant Ajit Singh has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties (in short OPs) U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, The C.P.Act.) seeking necessary directions to the OPs to issue “NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE”. OPs be further directed to pay Rs.25,000/- for harassment, financial loss and metal tension etc alongwith Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses to him.

2.        The case of the complainant in brief is that he got finance his Vehicle 2516 TAURUS bearing registration No.PB-06-Q-3275 having chassis No.MBICTDYC7CPXE5032 and its engine No.XCP139888, from the OPs in the year on 25.6.2012. The finance value of the vehicle was Rs.14,99,000/- and he also agreed to pay Rs.5,65,872/- as finance charges on the said amount of Rs.14,99,000/- as such, the total agreement value was Rs.20,64,872/-. The total installment of the agreement was 60 and the expiry date of the agreement was 21.5.2017. He was regularly paying the installments of the Vehicle. He has paid Rs.24,02,797/- to the OPs rater the agreement value was Rs.20,64,872/-.He had already paid extra amount of Rs.3,50,000/-to the OPs. He has further pleaded that he has incurred huge amount on the vehicle for maintenance since its finance. The trucks needs maintenance from time to time and every month the complainant incurred Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/- for the maintenance of truck. He is earning Rs.25,000/- to Rs.30,000/- per month and incurring Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/- every month on the truck.  He is earning his bread by driving said truck. He arrived at a settlement with the OPs and paid Rs.24,02,797.76 during agreement time and noting was due towards  him as he has paid more than agreement value to the OPs. OPs also sent statement of account to him. The status regarding payment of the agreement on statement of account is showing with the remarks “closed”. He approached the OPs and requested for issuing “NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE’ but the OPs told him that the process will some time and advised to revisit the OP No.1after one week. Thereafter, he again approached OPs on different dates and on each and every day of his visit, the OPs linger upon the matter of claim on one pretext or the other and did not issue  “NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE”  Till date the OPs has not issue NOC and harassing him and now straightly refused to do anything to him. The acts and conducts of OPs tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. Hence this complaint.

3.             Notice of the complaint was issued to the OPs who appeared through their counsel and filed their written reply taking the preliminary objections that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable;  this Ld.Forum has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint as the vehicle in question has been used for commercial purpose to earn profits by employing the drivers to ply the vehicle in question by the complainant; the complainant has concealed the true material facts from this ld.Forum and  this ld.Forum has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present  complaint as there is an Arbitration agreement between the parties to raise all the disputes, issues and differences before the Arbitrator. On merits, it was admitted that the vehicle in question was got financed by the complainant from the opposite parties. Actually, the complainant is co-borrower of two other vehicles got financed by the complainant and others from the Ops, whereas the complainant had habitual defaulted in the payment of loan installment. Complainant has further employed the drivers to ply the vehicle in question and other vehicles for commercial purpose only. The complainant had paid only due amount against the vehicle in question, but the complainant had defaulted in the payment of other two vehicles got financed by him from OPs as co-borrower. He has concealed this true material fact from this ld Forum. It has further pleaded that the complainant never requested and approached the OPs for NO Objection Certificate. The complainant is not entitled for NO Objection certificate as the complainant had not paid his dues against his other vehicles got financed by the OPs.  While denying and controverting other allegations leveled by the complainant, opposite parties has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

4.     Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1 alongwith other documents Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3 and closed the evidence.

5.      Sh.Neeraj Gautam Branch Manager, has tendered into evidence his own affidavits Ex.OP-1 and Ex.OP-3,  Photocopy of Special Power of attorney Ex.OP-2 alongwith other documents Ex.OP-4 and Ex.OP-5 and closed the evidence.

6.        We have bestowed our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by learned counsels for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.

7.        From the very outset, it is not denied by the Ops that complainant got financed the vehicle in dispute from the Ops and the said loan amount is duly paid by the complainant and the said account stands closed as Ex.C2 proves this fact on the file. The complainant has demanded NOC of this account as there is nothing due against complainant. But the plea of Ops is that though complainant has repaid the loan towards this account, yet the complainant is co-borrower in some other loan accounts and has defaulted in the payment of installments of those accounts, that’s why the Ops have not issued No Objection Certificate to the complainant. The counsel for Ops argued that as  the complainant had concealed this material fact from this Ld.Forum. This complaint needs dismissal with costs.

8.        We have scrutinized the documents produced by complainant as well as Ops Ex.C-2 is the detailed status of the loan account. In this document contact No. is PJJ00267D and this account stands ‘closed’ on 30.9.2017. We have compared this document with another one produced as Ex.OP-4 on the file. Ex.OP-4 is related to another account of complainant wherein took loan and contract No. is PJJ00307D. Ex.OP-5 is the copy of award passed in Arbitration Proceedings against the complainant against loan account NO. Con no:PJJ00307D as the complainant is co-borrower  in other loan accounts. Counsel for OP also produced copies of judgments passed in different cases by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Industrial Investment Bank of India Ltd Vs. Biswanath Jhujhnuwala wherein it was held in para No.30 of the judgment “the legal position as crystallized by a series of cases of this court is clear that the liability of the guarantor and principle debtors are co-extensive and not in alternative. When we examine the impugned judgment in the light of the consistent position of law, then the obvious conclusion has to be that the High court under its power of superintendence under article 227 of the constitution of India was not justified to stay further proceedings in O.A. 156 of 1997”.

9.         Counsel for OP also referred a judgment of Hon’ble National Commission titled M.Mallika Vs. State Bank of India and Anr wherein categorically held in para 20 of the judgment that “we feel that the bank was absolutely justified in feeling inhibited in returning the documents/title deeds. M/s.Bava Trading Corporation, M/s.Cauvery Knitting Co. and K.R. Krishnamurthy & Sons and suit guarantor for all the credit and loan facilities sanction to the said firms. As such, in all the three cases, notwithstanding the provisions under Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act, the bank was entitled to exercise its right of general lien under Section 171. The mortgagor right to get back title deeds under Section 60 is right of general nature. Provisions of the Contract Act under Section 171 carves out an exception to the said general rule in order to protect the interest of the bank by ensuring right to retain the document so that other loan accounts of the bank are also cleared by borrowers or guarantor without forcing the bank to file suits”.

 10.      Here in the present case also it is made clear and proved by ex.OP5 that complainant is co-borrower in other loan accounts and arbitration award is already passed against him. So, keeping in view the points discussed above and also judgments referred above we find no force in the contentions of Ld.counel for complainant and the complaint is hereby dismissed..

11.         Copy of the orders be communicated to the parties free of charges. File be consigned to record. The complaint could not be `decided within prescribed time due to rush of work.

 Announced:                            (Shri Raj Singh)             (Rajita Sareen)
August 06, 2019.                            Member                              Presiding Member

 MK