JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER 1. The facts germane to the above detailed case are these. The complainant, Jumma Khan purchased a truck bearing registration No. RJ 148G-0975. The said vehicle was financed by the petitioner/respondent, Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited. The complainant deposited a sum of Rs.8,78,196/-. In the meantime, the complainant had also filed a civil suit before Hon’ble Civil Judge, Junior Division, Alwar against the respondent. As ordered by the Civil Judge, the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.8,10,601/- with the respondent. The petitioner-opposite party also assured that he would issue ‘NOC’ of the said vehicle in favour of the complainant. 2. The grievance of the complainant, Jumma Khan before the District Fourm was that ‘NOC’ was not issued by the petitioner and it be directed to issue NOC and compensation be imposed upon it. 3. The defence set up by the petitioner before the District Forum was that the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.8,10,601/-, however, it stated that apart from the above said loan, the complainant had also availed another private loan for a short period through an agreement dated 19.10.2006 of an amount of Rs.4,98,000/- on guarantee of said vehicle i.e. truck bearing registration No. RJ 148G-975 and the truck bearing registration No. RJ 02 1G-275. The complainant was to pay the full loan and an amount of Rs.24,100/- is still due against the complainant. It is stated that the agreement was executed at Jaipur, therefore, the jurisdiction of Alwer fora was called into question. Again, there was arbitration clause and the matter should have been referred to the Arbitrator. 4. The document dated 18.8.2008 is very crucial. Both the transactions are different. One cannot stop the ‘NOC’ in respect of one vehicle even if other agreement is still continuing. However, it appears that the loan of both the vehicles already stand paid as is apparent from the order of the State Commission which runs as follows: “As per the Complainant that he on 18.08.2008 has deposited an amount of 18.08.2008 vide a receipt number 147090 to the Respondent relying upon assurance given by the Respondent that NOC of the said vehicle shall be issued and handed over to the complainant within 40 days as soon as the outstanding amount with regard to the said vehicle truck bearing No. RJ 14 3 G-0975 and consequently he has cleared all the outstanding dues towards Agreement No. CV869185 with regard the vehicle bearing number RJ 14 3 G-0975. The Complainant has produced the receipt dated 18.08.2008 by which it is clear that the Complainant has deposited a sum of Rs.3,10,501 to the Respondent bank vide the said receipt. It is not a disputed fact that the Complainant has not deposited the amount in lieu of the said vehicle with regard to the said Agreement. The Respondent produced the document 18.08.2008 dated which is written by the Complainant in which he has stated that he has received the outstanding amount of Rs. 18.08.2008 in lieu of the said vehicle in accordance with the Agreement and also stated that NOC of the said vehicle Number CV 869185 and Agreement Number CV 869185 shall be issued within 40 day from 18.08.2008. The respondent mainly stated that the complainant has also availed a private loan facility of Rs.4,98,000/- on a another vehicle apart from the said vehicle but the Complainant has not paid the installments and the said loan was availed on 19.10.2006 but the documents 18.03.2008 written by the Respondent in favour of the complainant clearly states the outstanding amount has been paid in respect of the Agreement Number CV 869185 and NOC shall be issued with in 40 days from 18.03.2008. The said document was written on 18.03.2009 on that time the Respondent was fully aware about the aforesaid fact and circumstances but in spite of the knowledge he has made a statement that NOC of the vehicle No. Number CV 869185 shall be issued within 40 days in favour of the Complainant. Therefore, in view of the above mentioned fact and circumstances as the Respondent has not issued the NOC despite the document dated 18.03.2008, this act of the Respondent is in purview of the deficiency in services and the Respondent caused deficiency in services by not issuing the NOC. In view of the aforesaid it is justified to order the Respondent to issue NOC in favour of the Complainant with regard to the vehicle Number CV 869185. It is also justified to award an amount of Rs.3000/- to the Complainant towards the mental agony and complainant cost.” 5. The revision petition is not maintainable and is, therefore, dismissed |
