BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
ERNAKULAM.
Date of filing : 26/08/2010
Date of Order : 29/10/2011
Present :-
Shri. A. Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
C.C. No. 467/2010
Between
M.K. Shajahan, | :: | Complainant |
656, Vattavila Puthen Veedu, Kunnicode. P.O., Kollam Dt. |
| (By Adv. R. Krishnakumar, Kottumgal House, Near T.D. Temple, Cherthala.P.O. - 688 524) |
And
Kotak Mahindra Primus Limited, | :: | Opposite party |
Rep. by its Branch Manager, 4th Floor, Thadikkaran Centre, Palarivattom, Kochi – 682 0215. |
| (By Adv. Lal K. Joseph, M/s. Sheriff Associates Advocates, 41/318-C, Kolliyil Buildings, Near Mullassery Canal, Chittoor Road, Kochi - 11) |
O R D E R
A. Rajesh, President.
1. The case of the complainant is as follows :
The complainant purchased the car bearing Registration No. KL-02 L 3424 by availing himself of a loan of Rs. 1,70,000/- from the opposite party. Hire purchase agreement was executed on 31-05-2001. The complainant agreed to repay the loan amount in 36 equal monthly instalments of Rs. 5,643/- each. Though the complainant remitted all the instalments, the opposite party has not issued no objection certificate to the complainant so as to enter the same in the RC particulars. Due to the non-issuance of NOC, the complainant is not in a position to sell the vehicle and by the time the value of the vehicle was reduced considerably. So, the complainant sustained a loss to the tune of Rs. 75,000/-. The complainant caused to issue a lawyer notice to the opposite party on 24-09-2009, but there was no response. The complainant is entitled to get NOC from the opposite party together with compensation of Rs. 75,000/- and costs of the proceedings. This complaint hence.
2. Version of the opposite party :
As per the loan agreement, the EMI was agreed to be remitted on 20th day of every month and for defaults if any, the complainant would be liable to cheque bounding charges, over due charges due to the non-payment and late payments of EMI's and other charges. The complainant had been a defaulter from the 3rd instalment onwards and the EMI cheques got dishonoured. As per the statement of accounts as on 26-08-2010, an amount of Rs. 13,162/- is payable to the opposite party. So, no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice can be attributable against the opposite party. The complainant has not suffered any loss as averred in the complaint. The opposite party has no objection in issuing the NOC provided the complainant pays the amount mentioned above.
3. The complainant was examined as PW1, Exts. A1 to A4 were marked on his side. The witness for the opposite party was examined as DW1 and Exts. B1 and B2 were marked on their side. Heard the counsel for the parties.
4. The points that came up for consideration are :
Whether the complainant is entitled to get the NOC of his car from the opposite party?
Compensation and costs of the proceedings?
5. Point No. i. :- The following issues are not disputed by the parties :
The complainant availed a loan of Rs. 1,70,000/- from the opposite party by executing Ext. A1 hire purchase agreement dated 31-05-2001.
The loan amount was payable by 36 equal monthly instalments of Rs. 5,643/- each.
The instalments were to be paid by 20th day of every month.
The complainant had paid all the instalments though in some cases belatedly.
The complainant caused Ext. A3 lawyer notice dated 24-09-2009 to the opposite party demanding to issue NOC of the vehicle
6. According to the opposite party, the complainant is liable to pay an outstanding amount of Rs. 13,162/- to the opposite party. But the opposite party did not produce any document to prove that they have demanded the above amount from the complainant at any time till the intimation of this complaint which is clearly barred by law of limitation. As per the Limitation Act 1963, the opposite party ought to have demanded the above amount from the complainant within 3 years from the date of the amount fell in due in which the opposite party failed reasons for which have not been stated or explained. However, no satisfactory explanation is forthcoming on the part of the opposite party as to the reasons for not responding to Ext. A3 notice issued by the complainant demanding to issue the NOC necessarily. In the above circumstances, the opposite party is legally and contractually liable to issue NOC to the complainant's vehicle.
7. Point No. ii. :- In Ext. A3 lawyer notice, the complainant has demanded the opposite party to issue the NOC only. In Ext. A3, there is no whisper as to the loss sustained by him due to the delay in issuing the NOC. The subsequent embellished version in his complaint does not call for evaluation here from this Forum. The complainant has failed to produce before this Forum the purported loss sustained by him. So , compensation and costs are not sustainable.
8. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct that the opposite party shall peremptorily issue NOC of the vehicle bearing Reg. No. KL-02 L 3424 Maruti Car to the complainant to enable him to change RC particulars.
The order shall be complied with, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 29th day of October 2011.
Forwarded/By Order, Sd/- A. Rajesh,President.
Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.
Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Senior Superintendent.
A P P E N D I X
Complainant's Exhibits :-
Exhibit A1 | :: | A letter issued by the op.pty |
“ A2 | :: | Statement of contract |
“ A2 | :: | Copy of the lawyer notice dt. 24-09-2009 |
“ A2 | :: | Postal receipt |
Opposite party's Exhibits :-
Exhibit B1 | :: | Copy of the resolution passed at the meeting of the committee |
“ B2 | :: | Account statement dt. 14-07-2011 |
Depositions :- |
|
|
PW1 | :: | Shajahan - complainant |
DW1 | :: | Jomet. K.J. - op.pty |
=========
