Petitioner purchased a vehicle after obtaining a loan from the respondent bank.  According to the petitioner, he repaid the loan in 35 installments.  After paying the installments, petitioner requested the respondent bank to issue No Objection Certificate, which the respondent bank failed to issue.  Being aggrieved, petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum.

-2-

          Stand taken by the respondent before the District Forum was that the petitioner had obtained top-up loan by hypothecating the same vehicle and the period of hypothecation was increased to 01.10.2008.

          District Forum allowed the complaint, aggrieved against which the respondent bank filed an appeal before the State Commission.  The State Commission by the impugned order allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the District Forum by observing as follows:

“The appellant, in the written version, has clearly pleaded that a top-up loan was obtained by the respondent/complainant on the same vehicle and the period of hypothecation was extended up to 01.10.08.  In this regard, copy of few documents, which were filed along with Arbitration Petition, pending before the High Court of judicature at Bombay and its original set has also been filed before the District Forum including the agreement executed between the parties.  Respondent has placed heavy reliance upon the statement of account, issued by the appellants, showing that initial loan was repaid by 02.11.06.  Today another document has been shown

-3-

to us as statement of account, issued by the same Bank, which is also available in the record of the District Forum as document OP-2.  It is statement of account in respect of another loan for the period from 01.01.2000 to 20.10.08 and the vehicle, which was kept on collateral security of that loan was also same i.e. CG-04,A-6455.  This statement clearly shows that there were loan transactions between the parties with hypothecation of the same vehicle, even after the period of first loan.  On 01.11.06, there is a debit entry of due installment, then a credit entry of the same amount and thereafter, the entries were going on regarding deposit of installment cheques and then in respect of dishonour of cheques and so on.  This statement of account shows that settlement of account between the parties was not complete and the vehicle was still in hypothecation, even up to 20.10.08, when the last installment was to be paid.  Present complaint was filed on 14.05.08 whereas the vehicle was still in hypothecation, at least up to 20.10.08, in respect of loan of the appellant Bank.  The vehicle was under hypothecation ad the appellant Bank was not required to issue No Objection Certificate in respect of that vehicle.  Thus, if No Objection Certificate was not issued on demand of the complainant/respondent then it does not

-4-

amount to deficiency in service.  Pendency of complaint before High Court of Bombay, in respect of settlement of account between the parties regarding loan taken against the vehicle of the respondent, is also a factor which shows that settlement of account was not complete, at the time of filing of the complaint.”      

          Perusal of the order would show that the petitioner had taken an additional loan by hypothecating the car and till the same was repaid, the respondent was not obliged to issue the No Objection Certificate.  Settlement of Account between the parties regarding the loan taken against the vehicle of the respondent is also pending before the Bombay High Court.  We find no infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission.  Dismissed.  No costs.