DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No: CC/158/2020
Date of Institution: 18.08.2020
Date of Decision: 03.07.2024
Kehar Singh aged 40 years son of Jarnail Singh resident of Village Deepgarh, Tehsil Tapa, District Barnala.
…Complainant
Versus
Indusland Bank, Branch Faridkot, Near Bus Stand, Faridkot-151203 through its Branch Manager.
…Opposite Party
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019
Present: Sh. Paramjit Singh Adv counsel for complainant.
Sh. Amarinder Singh Adv counsel for opposite party.
Quorum.-
1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover : President
2. Smt. Urmila Kumari : Member
3. Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg : Member
(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER PRESIDENT):
The complainant Kehar Singh filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against Indusland Bank, Faridkot. (in short the opposite parties).
2. The facts leading to the present complaint as stated by the complainant are that the complainant had purchased one Truck bearing registration No. PB-19M-0773 which was hypothecated to the opposite party vide contract No. PBD00101D dated 6.4.2016. The value of the agreement was Rs. 23,52,066/- and complainant paid total amount of Rs. 24,38,330/- and nothing is due from the complainant by the opposite party. The complainant approached the opposite party to issue No Due Certificate but they refused to oblige the complainant. The complainant has a legal right to receive No Due Certificate for the purpose of getting removed Hypothecation entries from his registration certificate. The complainant is not able to sell his truck due to said entries in the registration certificate as transport authorities refused to transfer the title of the vehicle. The complainant requested many times to issue No Due Certificate but to no effect, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-
1) The opposite party may be directed to issue No Due Certificate to the complainant.
2) To pay Rs. 50,000/- on account of compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses. The complainant is also entitled to recover interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till actual realization.
3) Any other fit relief may also be given.
3. Upon notice of this complaint, opposite party filed written reply taking preliminary objections that this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the present dispute as it is not a consumer dispute. The complainant is having multiple vehicles and business activity done by the complainant is of commercial nature. The complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. The complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands.
4. On merits, it is submitted that the customer has obtained another loan from the bank vide agreement No. PLS00691D and as on date the account is in over due and is expiring on 18.2.2023. When the complainant approached the bank for issuance of NOC the bank representative clearly explained him that the present account is lien marked with contract No. PLS00691D and No objection certificate cannot be issued for contract No. PBD00101D which the subject contract. As per clause 20 of the loan agreement bank can mark lien by combining all the accounts in which the customer is either borrower or co-borrower which reads as under.-
“Set-off and Lien:0.1 Notwithstanding anything contained, in this Agreement, the Lender shall have a lien over all the assets of Borrower (s)/Co-borrower(s) in the Lender's control and a right of set off against any monies due to the Lender from the Borrower (s)/Co-borrower(s) and to combine all accounts of the Borrower(s)/Co-borrower(s) for recovery of the Lenders dues hereunder and as per 20.2 It is hereby agreed and understood by the Borrower that in the event the Borrower(s) defaults in payment of the Installments/charges/fees, without prejudice to the right of the termination, the Lender shall have the right to set-off all monies, securities, deposits, other assets and properties of the Borrower(s)/Co-borrower(s) that is held by the Lender as secured asset, against the amount in which the default has been committed under this agreement of any other Agreement.”
For this purpose the Lender can combine all accounts held in the name of the Borrower, Co Borrower and/or Guarantor. The complainant entered into the loan agreements with his consent and after understanding the terms and conditions of the agreement. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. This Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint as Arbitration clause is also in agreement. Lastly, the opposite party prayed for the dismissal of the present with costs.
5. In support of his complaint, the complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of RC Ex.C-2, copy of statement of account Ex.C-3, copy of statement of account dated 19.1.2022 Ex.C-4 and closed the evidence.
6. To rebut the case of the complainant the opposite party tendered in evidence affidavit of Abhisar Dev Ex.OP-1, copy of statement of account OLM00416D Ex.OP-2, copy of loan agreement OLM00416D Ex.OP-3, copy of statement of account PLS00691D Ex.OP-4, copy of loan agreement PLS00691D Ex.OP-5, copy of statement of account PBD00101D Ex.OP-6, copy of loan agreement PBD00101D Ex.OP-7, copy of statement of account PLS00689D Ex.OP-8, copy of loan agreement PLS00689D Ex.OP-9, copy of statement of account PLS00688D Ex.OP-10, copy of loan agreement PLS00688D Ex.OP-11, copy of power of attorney Ex.OP-12 and closed the evidence.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file. Written arguments also filed by the opposite party.
8. Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant had purchased one Truck bearing registration No. PB-19M-0773 (i.e. Ex.C-2) which was hypothecated to the opposite party vide contract No. PBD00101D dated 6.4.2016 and the value of the agreement was Rs. 23,52,066/- and the complainant paid total amount of Rs. 24,38,330/- and nothing is due from the complainant by the opposite party (as per Ex.C-3). Ld. Counsel for complainant further argued that the complainant approached the opposite party to issue No Due Certificate but they refused to oblige the complainant. It is argued that the complainant has a legal right to receive No Due Certificate for the purpose of getting removed Hypothecation entries from his registration certificate. It is further argued that the complainant is not able to sell his truck due to said entries in the registration certificate as transport authorities refused to transfer the title of the vehicle. It is also argued that the complainant requested many times to issue No Due Certificate but to no effect, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
9. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the opposite party argued that the customer has obtained another loan from the bank vide agreement No. PLS00691D (as per Ex.O.P-4) and as on date the account is in overdue and is expiring on 18.2.2023. It is further argued that when the complainant approached the bank for issuance of NOC the bank representative clearly explained him that the present account is lien marked with contract No. PLS00691D and No objection certificate cannot be issued for contract No. PBD00101D which the subject contract. It is also argued that as per clause 20 of the loan agreement bank can mark lien by combining all the accounts in which the customer is either borrower or co-borrower which reads as mentioned above in the written version. It is further argued that for this purpose the Lender can combine all accounts held in the name of the Borrower, Co Borrower and/or Guarantor. It is argued that the complainant entered into the loan agreements with his consent and after understanding the terms and conditions of the agreement, as such there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
10. In order to prove his case the complainant has placed on record copy of statement of account Ex.C-3 which is Cash Flow Details And IHM Details and the same is shows that the agreement value was Rs. 23,52,066/- which was obtained by the complainant at the time of purchasing the above said Truck. From the perusal of Ex.C-3 it further shows that the total amount of Rs. 24,38,330/- paid by the complainant to the opposite party and the loan outstanding shows as 0.00 and from this it is established that the complainant paid the total loan amount to the opposite party and nothing is due against the complainant. Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that despite the repayment/repaid of loan amount the opposite party did not issue the No Due Certificate for the purpose of getting removed Hypothecation entry from his registration certificate and due to this the transport authority refused to transfer the title of the vehicle in question.
11. The plea of the opposite party is that as per clause 20 of the loan agreement bank can mark lien by combining all the accounts in which the customer is either borrower or co-borrower and for this purpose the Lender can combine all accounts held in the name of the Borrower, Co Borrower and/or Guarantor, as such No Objection Certificate cannot be issued for contract No. PBD00101D which the subject contract. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant had already cleared/repaid the loan, despite this No Objection Certificate was not issued by the opposite party. Ld. Counsel for the complainant relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission, New Delhi, Revision Peition No. 3571 of 2011 from Order dated 25.8.2011 in Appeal No. 2494 of 2010 of Karnataka State Consumer Commission, in case titled Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. & Anr. Vs R. Srinivasan & Anr. vide which the Hon’ble National Commission held that “Loan availed for vehicle fully repaid- District Forum directed appellants to issue NOC with compensation and costs- Order affirmed by State Commission- Revision against- Complainant has also taken other loan from petitioner bank which was not repaid by him- Blanket NOC cannot be issued- Bank is directed to issue “No Dues Certificate” in respect of vehicle in favour of complainant”. Ld. Counsel for the complainant also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission, New Delhi, Revision Petition No. 997 of 2011 against Order dated 24.1.2011 in Appeal No. 1583 of 2009 of Rajasthan State Consumer Commission, in case titled Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs Jumma Khan, vide which the Hon’ble National Commission held that “No dues certificate- Issuance of- Transaction of both loans is different- One cannot stop ‘NOC’ in respect of one vehicle even if other agreement is still continuing”. Ld. Counsel for the complainant further relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission, New Delhi, Revision Petition No. 2070 of 2010 (against Order dated 15.12.2009 in Appeal No. 391 of 2007 of State Commission, Himachal Pradesh), in case titled Magma Fincorp Limited & Anr. Vs Arshad Hussain, vide which the Hon’ble National Commission held that “Loan repaid- NOC not issued- Deficiency in service- Impugned order upheld”.
12. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission, New Delhi in the above said judgments and facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that as the opposite party has not issued the NOC on unreasonable and unjustified grounds despite the fact that the complainant repaid the loan of the above said Truck in question. By not issuing the NOC of the vehicle in question is clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.
13. For the reasons noted above, the present complaint is partly allowed and the opposite party is directed to issue No Due Certificate to the complainant of the vehicle/Truck No. PB-19M-0773. The opposite party is further directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- on account of compensation for causing mental torture, agony and harassment suffered by the complainant and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within the period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:
3rd Day of July, 2024
(Ashish Kumar Grover)
President
(Urmila Kumari)
Member
(Navdeep Kumar Garg)
Member
