KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No.719/2015

JUDGEMENT DATED: 25.11.2024

(Against the order in C.C.No.92/2013 of the DCDRC, Wayanad)

PRESENT:

APPELLANT:

(by Adv. Abhishek R.V.)

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

(by Adv. Narayan R.)

JUDGEMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR  :  PRESIDENT

          The appellant is the opposite party in C.C.No.92/2013 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Wayanad (for short ‘the District Commission’).

          2.       The complainant contended that the complainant availed a loan of Rs.4,45,000/-(Rupees Four Lakhs Forty Five Thousand only) for purchasing a vehicle from the opposite party.  The loan amount was agreed to be repaid in equal monthly instalments. The complainant paid the entire amount on 12.03.2013.  However, when the complainant demanded the ‘No Objection Certificate’ for getting the hypothecation cancelled from the RC book, the opposite party demanded an amount of Rs.56,114/-(Rupees Fifty Six Thousand  One Hundred and Fourteen only), which amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.  In the said circumstances, the complainant filed the above complaint.

          3.       The opposite party filed version admitting the disbursement of the loan amount to the complainant.  However, the opposite party contended that there was default in repayment of the loan amount.  Since there was default in repayment of the loan amount, the opposite party demanded an amount of Rs.48,098/-(Rupees Forty Eight Thousand and Ninety Eight only) from the complainant for issuing the ‘No Objection Certificate’.  The complainant was a defaulter and hence the complainant is not entitled to get any relief from the Commission.

          4.       PW1 was examined and Exhibits A1 to A3 were marked on the side of the complainant.  OPW1 was examined and Exhibits B1 and B2 were marked on the side of the opposite party. 

          5.       After evaluating the evidence, the District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to issue ‘No Objection Certificate’ for the purpose of cancelling the hypothecation. The District Commission also ordered the opposite party to pay Rs.3,000/-(Rupees Three Thousand only) as costs to the complainant.  Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal has been filed.

          6.       Heard both sides.

          7.       It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant/the opposite party that since the complainant had made default in repayment of the loan, the appellant/the opposite party was not bound to issue ‘No Objection Certificate’ to the complainant for getting the endorsement regarding the hypothecation cancelled from the RC book and in the said circumstances, the District Commission was wrong in issuing the order impugned. 

8.       The learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, has argued that since there was no default/delay in repayment of the loan amount, the complainant cannot be a defaulter and hence the complaint is perfectly maintainable.  It is not disputed that the loan was availed from the appellant by the complainant and the said loan amount was repaid on 12.03.2013 with some delay in repayment.  Exhibits B2 and A2 would show that there was delay and default in the payment of the instalments.  Therefore, as per Exhibits B2 and A2, it can be safely said that the complainant was a defaulter.

9.       The National Commission in 2023 (1) CPR NC 261 Anil Rana vs M/s ATS Estates Pvt. Ltd. and Another held that if the complainant is a defaulter, he cannot allege deficiency in service against the opposite party.  Since the complainant herein was a defaulter, he cannot allege deficiency in service against the opposite party, who is the appellant.   In view of the above, the order passed by the District Commission cannot be sustained and consequently, we set aside the same.

In the result, this appeal stands allowed, the order impugned stands set aside and the complaint stands dismissed.  In the circumstances, there is no order as to costs in this judgment.

Needless to state that since the order impugned stands set aside, the direction issued by the District Commission to the Regional Transport Officer, Wayanad also stands set aside.

The statutory deposit made by the appellant at the time of filing the appeal shall be refunded to the appellant, on proper acknowledgement.

SL