Kerala

Kasaragod

CC/13/56

Muhammed Salib - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd; - Opp.Party(s)

29 Oct 2013

ORDER

 
Complaint Case No. CC/13/56
 
1. Muhammed Salib
III/305,Panalam,Cherur.P.O
Kasaragod
Kerala
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd;
3rd floor,Elite Arcade,Chakkarathkulam(Nadakkavu)Kannur Road,
Calicut
kerala
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P.RAMADEVI PRESIDENT
 HONABLE MRS. Beena.K.G. MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. Shiba.M.Samuel MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
ORDER

 

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
                                             CC.56/13
                     Dated this, the 4th day of November 2013
PRESENT:
SMT.P.RAMADEVI                                         : PRESIDENT
SMT.K.G.BEENA                                          : MEMBER
SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL                               : MEMBER
 
Muhammed Salih, III/305 Panalam,              : Complainant
Cherur.Po. Kasaragod.
(Adv. Sumesh.P.V, Hosdurg)
 
Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd,                                : Opposite party
IIIrd Floor, Elite Arcade,
Chakkorathkulam (Nadakkavu),
Kannur Road, Calicut.
(Exparte)
 
                                                               O R D E R
SMT.K.G.BEENA, MEMBER
 
            The case of the complainant in brief is that he has availed a financial facility at the tune of Rs.1,84,607/- for purchasing a motor vehicle. As per the loan agreement the complainant has to pay an amount of Rs.2,40,988/- the amount has to be paid in 48 equal monthly instalments complainant has paid Rs. 2,43,112/- in full satisfaction of the loan amount. After receipt of the entire loan amount, opposite party failed to issue NOC to the complainant in order to cancel the hypothecation endorsement entered in RC book after the full satisfaction of the loan amount. Hence this complaint for necessary redressal.
2.         Notice issued to opposite party but they did not turn up. Hence opposite party had to be set exparte.
3.         Complainant’s counsel represented that they have no oral evidence. Exts A1 to A3 marked. Ext.A1 is the copy of the statement of account from 1-12-2007 to 10-10-2012. Ext.A2 is the lawyer notice and Ext.A3 is the acknowledgement card. While perusing the documents we are of the opinion that complainant is entitled for No Objection Certificate in respect of the vehicle No.KL-14-G 9023. As the deficiency in service on the part of opposite party caused mental agony and financial loss to the complainant which is to be compensated.
            In the result, complaint is allowed and opposite party is directed to issue No Objection Certificate in respect of the vehicle No.KL 14-G 9023 with a compensation of Rs.5000/- and cost of  Rs.2000/- within 30 days of the receipt of copy of this order. If the opposite party fail to issue NOC complainant can file an application before the RTO on receiving the application the RTO is directed to cancel the endorsement in the hypothecation agreement.
 
MEMBER                                                      MEMBER                              PRESIDENT
Exts.
A1.Statements of Accounts.
A2.16-11-2012. Copy of lawyer notice.
A3. Postal acknowledgement card
 
 
 
MEMBER                                                      MEMBER                              PRESIDENT
Pj/
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P.RAMADEVI]
PRESIDENT
 
[HONABLE MRS. Beena.K.G.]
MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Shiba.M.Samuel]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.