BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,SIRSA.
Complaint No.37/18.
Date of instt.: 18.01.2018.
Date of Decision:15.05.2019.
Amrjit Singh son of Shri Jagrup Singh resident of village Bharolianwali Opp. Gurudwara Tehsil Rania District Sirsa.
……….Complainant. Versus
Indusind Bank Ltd. Branch Janta Bhawan Road, Sirsa District Sirsa through its Branch Manager.
..………Opposite Party.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT.
SH. ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL, MEMBER..
MRS. SUKHDEEP KAUR, MEMBER.
Present: Shri B.S.Vinayak, Advocate for complainant.
Shri Sanjay Sihag, & Sh.H.S.Raghav, Advocates for OP.
ORDER
Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant had purchased a car Maruti Swift VDI in the year 2013 and an amount of Rs.4 lac was got financed with Op-bank with agreed installment of Rs.15,500/- per month. The complainant has paid Rs.7,22,699/- to the Op-bank and has cleared the loan amount on 18.04.2016. Thereafter, the complainant demanded No Dues Certificate/No objection certificate for releasing the hypothecation from the registration certificate but the Op lingered on the matter without any reason, therefore, the complainant got served a legal notice upon it but to no avail. The Op has even did not disclose that in what mode and what rate of interest on the sanctioned loan was charged. The act and conduct of the Op clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, OP appeared and filed its reply wherein it has been submitted that the present complaint has been filed by concealing the material facts. In fact, one Lakhwinder Singh son of Joginder Singh had availed a finance facility on a vehicle HYUNDAI 120 ASTA Engine No.502905 and chasis No.47770L vide loan agreement No.HDR01401C dated 17.12.2014, in which, the complainant stood as co-borrower and huge amount was due against both the persons, therefore, arbitration proceedings were initiated as per the terms and conditions of the agreement and finally arbitration award dated 06.09.2017 was passed against both the persons, hence, both are liable to pay the awarded amount alongwith interest @ 18 % per annum. It has been further submitted that NOC cannot be issued until and unless the loan amount is cleared/settled, therefore, the complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint. The execution for the enforcement of the arbitration award is pending before District Judge, Sirsa. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Op. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3. Thereafter, both the parties have led their respective evidence.
4. We have heard the ld. counsel for complainant and perused the case file carefully and minutely.
5. Perusal of the case file reveals that the complainant, in order to prove his case, has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1, wherein he has reiterated all the facts mentioned in the complaint. He also tendered documents such as legal notice Ex.C2, postal receipt Ex.C3, registration certificate Ex.C4 and statement of account Ex.C5. On the other hand, no evidence has been led on behalf of the OP. However, learned counsel for the OP, vide separate statement dated 09.05.2019 stated that the written statement filed on behalf of the Op be read as its evidence.
6. It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant is owner of car Maruti Swift VDI, which was got financed from the Op and the loan was to be repaid by the complainant. As per allegations of the complainant, he has paid the entire loan amount alongwith interest to the OP, but however, the Op is not issuing the NOC for releasing of hypothecation from the registration certificate of the vehicle. Though the OP had taken a specific plea that the complainant was a co-borrower in some other transaction, in which, the said loan has become NPA and there is arbitration award against the complainant Amarjit Singh and Lakhwinder Singh, co–borrower and the complainant is not entitled for issuance of NOC in the present loan transaction. But however, perusal of the evidence of the Op reveals that the Op has not placed on file any document in support of its defence plea. He has not placed on record any other loan agreement regarding joining the complainant as co-borrower, copy of the alleged award passed by the arbitrator and any document to show the other loan account as NPA, nor any statement of account has been placed on record qua the other loan amount, as alleged by the OP. So, it appears that the Op has failed to prove its defence plea. Since, it is proved on record that the complainant has paid the entire loan amount alongwith interest to the OP and nothing is due against the complainant, therefore, it is legal obligation of the Op to issue the NOC regarding releasing of hypothecation, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.
7. In view of the above discussion, we allow the present complaint. The Op is directed to issue the NOC within 45 days, from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. We further direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- as composite compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.
Pronounced in open Forum. President,
Dated: 15.05.2019. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member Member
DCDRF, Sirsa DCDRF, Sirsa
