Punjab

Faridkot

CC/22/91

Jatinder Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Indusind Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Anil Kumar Chawla

16 May 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FARIDKOT

 

C.C. No. :                 91 of 2022

Date of Institution:    07.06.2022

Date of Decision :     16.05.2023

 

Jatinder Kumar aged about 40 years, son of Puran Chand, resident of Prem Nagar, Sikhan Wala  Road, Kotkapura, Tehsil Kotkapura, District Faridkot.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

.......Complainant

Versus

Indusind Bank, Branch Office, Near Bus Stand Opposite Vik Baker, District Faridkot through Branch Manager.

.......Opposite Party

          Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

(Now, Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019)

 

Quorum:    Smt Priti Malhotra, President,

Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present:      Sh Anil Chawla, Adv Ld Counsel for complainant,    

                  OP Exparte. 

* * * * * * * * *

(ORDER) 

(Priti Malhotra, President)

                                 Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against OP for deficiency in service

 

cc no.-91 of 2022

and for seeking directions to OP to issue ‘No Due Certificate’ and for further directing OP to pay the amount of Rs.50,000/-as compensation for mental agony and harassment and financial loss to complainant besides litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.

2                                              The brief facts of the present complaint are that complainant purchased one motorcycle make Hero Delux 100cc on 14.08.2015 by availing loan of Rs.34,360/-from OP against contract no.PBK06076H and thereafter, complainant used to repay loan instalments regularly without any default and cleared the loan account on 26.01.2017. It has been alleged that OP assured to issue ‘No Due Certificate’ within few days, but thereafter, OP kept lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other saying NDC is to be issued by Head Office as they have no power to release the same. Complainant approached them several times and made repeated requests, but OP did not do needful in releasing ‘No Due Certificate’ in respect of clearance of his loan account regarding purchase of his motorcycle. It has further been submitted that complainant has sold the said motor cycle to one Gurmeet Singh, but due to non issuance of ‘No Due Certificate’, hypothecation could not be removed and for want of said certificate, purchaser of said motorcycle has detained some amount of complainant. All this happened due to deficiency in service on the part of OP. All this act and conduct of OP has caused huge harassment and mental agony to

cc no.-91 of 2022

him. Vide present complaint, complainant has made prayer for directions to OP to issue ‘No Due Certificate’ and has also prayed for compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides expenses incurred by him on present litigation. Hence, the present complaint.

3                  The complaint was admitted after hearing and vide order dated 15.06.2022, notice was issued to Opposite Party to appear in person or through representative to file reply to the complainant.

4               On receipt of notice, OP appeared in the Commission through counsel, but did not file any reply and suffered statement before this Commission that he has no instructions from OP to contest the present complaint and therefore, in view of statement given by OP counsel, vide order dated 01.11.2022, Opposite Party was proceeded against exparte.

5                          From the careful perusal of the documents, it is revealed that complainant has cleared all the dues against his loan accounts and now nothing is left outstanding towards him.  Now, there remains no iota of doubt that complainant has made entire payments to clear the loans availed by him.

6                           However, during the course of arguments, OP appeared in this Commission through his representative and submitted that NOC can be

cc no.-91 of 2022

issued only after updation of registration details of vehicle and details regarding registration of vehicle were supplied by complainant to OP on 05.05.2022 and on request of complainant, opposite party immediately made request to Head Office to issue NOC to complainant and on 07.06.2022, NOC sought by complainant was delivered to him and thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.

7                                   It is admitted by OP that complainant availed loan from them for purchasing motorcycle and it is also admitted that entire loan amount has been cleared by OP and nothing is due towards OP and complainant wanted NOC for removing the hypothecation from the name of OP to his own name. From record available, it is evident that NOC can be released only on updation of details regarding registration of vehicle and said registration details were supplied by complainant to Opposite party on 05.05.2022 and on receipt of same, OP forwarded the request of complainant for grant of NOC to their Head Office and in turn, Head office released the NOC which was delivered and duly received by complainant on 20.06.2022. Now, the bone of contention between the complainant and OP is that OP released NOC after a long delay of more than two years, but it is crystal clear and well proved from the record produced by complainant that when complainant supplied requisite documents for issuance of NOC on 05.05.2022, OP released NOC on 20.06.2022. Thus, time

cc no.-91 of 2022

taken by Opposite Party in issuance of NOC is not too much and seems genuine and we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of OP.

8                         From The above discussion, it is made out that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs as time taken by OPs in releasing NOC to complainant after submission of requisite documents by complainant before them, is genuine and there is no delay on the part of OPs. Therefore, complaint filed by complainant stands hereby dismissed being devoid of any merit. However, in peculiar circumstances of the case, there are no orders as to costs. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Commission

Dated : 16.05.2023

 

    Member                     President

   (Param Pal Kaur)        (Priti Malhotra)