KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 673/2009
JUDGMENT DATED: 25.09.2010
PRESENT:-
SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER
SHRI. S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
APPELLANT
K. Suresh Kumar,
Karunakaravilasam,
Ezhukone P.O.,
Kottarakkara, Kollam Dist.
(Rep. by Adv. Sri. Narayan R)
Vs
RESPONDENTS
The Branch Manager,
ING Vysya Bank Limited,
Kollam Branch,
Kollam.
JUDGMENT
SHRI. S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
The order dated 19.10.2009 in C.C. 79/2007 of CDRF, Kollam dismissing the complaint is being challenged in this appeal by the complainant calling for the intervention by this commission as to the sustainability of the order passed by the Forum below.
2. The complainant has approached the Forum below stating that he is the owner of the vehicle KL- 02 - 1818 and he had obtained a loan from the opposite party bank, after hypothecating the vehicle and further that he had cleared the dues on 15.9.2006 and thereupon the opposite party had issued No Objection Certificate along with Form No. 35 for cancellation of hypothecation endorsement in the Registration Certificate of the vehicle. The case of the complainant is that though he had presented the Non Objection Certificate along with other required documents for cancellation of the hypothecation agreement on 9.10.2006, the same was rejected by the R.T.O. on the ground that the opposite party had issued a letter to the Joint R.T.O. intimating that the complainant had not repaid the loan amount and the NOC issued on 15.9.06 was by mistake. Alleging deficiency of service in issuing such a letter there by disabling the complainant in getting the hypothecation cancelled, the complaint was filed praying for directions to the opposite party to issue NOC and to withdraw the letter issued to the Joint. R.T.O along with compensation of Rs. 75,000/- and cost of the proceedings.
3. The opposite party resisted the complaint by filing version wherein it was submitted that the complainant had availed 3 truck loans from the opposite party in respect of vehicles KL2 M 9495 ,KL2 P 1881 and KL2 P 1818. It was further submitted that the complainant had closed the loan in respect of vehicle KL2 M 9495 and that in the NOC issued happened to be in respect of vehicle KL2 P1818 by mistake. It was further submitted that the complainant had not settled the loan account of vehicle KL2 P 1818on 15.9.2006 and that an amount of Rs. 95,092.45 was outstanding against the loan in respect of the said vehicle. Contenting that the mistake happened due to inadvertent mistake and that there was no deficiency of service, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant vehemently argued before us that the order of the Forum below dismissing the complaint is perse illegal and unsustainable on the ground that the forum below had not appreciated the evidence adduced by the complainant and that it was fully believing the version of the opposite party that the complaint was dismissed. It is his very case that the complainant had closed the loan in respect of the vehicle KL2 P 1818 and the NOC was issued on the said date. It is also his case that if the complainant had any intention to defraud the opposite party, he would have immediately presented the papers before the R.T.O and from the fact that he had presented the papers only in the next month, It was clear that the complainant had approached the Forum with clean hands. It is his further case that the opposite party’s contention that it was by mistake that the No Objection Certificate was issued cannot be appreciated and accepted on the ground that the vehicle KL2 P 1818 was in the name of the complainant(Suresh Kumar) where as the owner of the vehicle KL2 M
9495 was manager E.V.H.S. School. He has also canvassed the position that the opposite party had issued No Objection Certificate in respect of vehicle KL2 M 9495 only in 2007(30.01.2007). The Learned Counsel submitted before us that the complainant is to be allowed directing the opposite party to issue the NOC and pay compensation as prayed for in the complaint.
5. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and also on as of perusing the records produced we find that it is the admitted case of both the parties that a NOC dated 15.09.2006 was issued by the opposite party in respect of vehicle bearing Register Number KL2 P 1881. It is also seen that the said vehicle is in the name of the complainant ie. Mr. Suresh Kumar and that the loan taken in respect of vehicle KL2 M 9495 is by the manager E.V.H.S. School. The complainant has a case that he had cleared the dues in respect of Vehicle KL02 P1818 and the NOC issued on 15.09.2006 was valid and enforceable. We have perused the NOC in question which is marked as Ext. P3. It is noted that the complainant has produced the NOC in respect of vehicle KL2 M 9495 dated 30.01.2007 as Ext. P9. On a further perusal of the documents we find that the opposite party had produced a statement of accounts in respect of vehicle KL2 P1818 as P7. It is also noted that the branch head of IG Vysya Bank has issued a letter to the RTO, Kottarakkara on 7.02.2007 informing that they have No Objection in canceling the hypothecation in respect of vehicleKL2 M 9495. On an appreciation of the entire facts and circumstances we find that the opposite party had not issued the clearance letter ie. N.O.C in respect of vehicle KL2 M 9495 on 15.9.2006. or within a short period if their argument was that it was in respect of vehicle KL 2 M 9495 is that the complainant had cleared the dues. It is also observed that vehicle KL2 M 9495 is in the name of an entirely different person that the manager , E.V.H.S. School and without verifying the records, the opposite party would not have issued the NOC when the complainant had closed the loan in respect of any one of the vehicles for which loans were taken. Moreover NOC will not be issued at the behest of only one person. It would have been seen by at least 2-3 persons including the manager, clerk etc. and we are of the impression that the opposite party had played some foul play after issuing the NOC in respect of vehicle KL2 P 1818 on 15.9.2006. It seems that the Forum below had failed in appreciating the contentions and evidence adduced by the complainant. We are of the view that the opposite party’s action in subsequently canceling the NOC is deficiency in service. We are also of the view that the opposite party is bound to issue NOC to the complainant and the RTO enabling the complainant to cancel the hypothecation agreement.
6. The complainant has prayed for a compensation of Rs. 75,000/-. We do not find any material on record to show that the complainant has suffered any grave loss due to the act of the opposite party. However the opposite party has committed deficiency in their service. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that compensation can be awarded to improve the quality of the service provider (Charan Singh Vs. Healing Touch Hospital and others – 2000CTJ Supreme Court 721 CP.) in the agglomerated facts and circumstances we feel that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- will be just and proper to be awarded as compensation to be paid by the opposite party /respondent to the complainant/appellant. The opposite party is also liable to pay Rs. 2,000/- as costs for the proceedings through out.
In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. There by the complaint is also allowed in part directing the opposite party/respondent to issue NOC to the complainant without collecting any amount in respect of vehicle KL2 P 1818 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and cost of Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant/appellant within a period of 2 ;months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint till the date of payment.
S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER
