ORDER                           Dated:  03.11.2016
Mohd. Anwar Alam, President

1.      Complainant has filed this complaint on  14-12-2015 and alleged
that he booked TSR no. DL 1RN 0853 and paid Rs 5000/- as booking
amount on 23.08.2012 and  Rs 42,135/- through DD on 03.12.2012  and
thereafter loan installment was continued w.e.f. January 2013 and
entire loan amount was deposited with the OP1.  Complainant  requested
OP1 to  issue no dues certificate/ form no. 35 as they are required
for cancellation of  hypothecation remark on the RC book of the
complainant but OP1 failed to issue the same. Legal notice  dated
26.08.2015 was sent to OP1 but OP1 did not reply.  Hence, there is
deficiency in service on the part of OP1 and complainant prayed to
direct OP  to issue N.O.C. / Form no. 35 and to award a sum of Rs
25,000/- as harassment and litigation cost.
2.      On 20.07.2016 due to non appearance of OP1 ,the matter was
proceeded ex-parte against it   and name of OP2 was deleted from array
of parties on the request of counsel for complainant .
3.       In support of his complaint complainant filed his ex-parte
evidence by way of his own affidavit.
4.      Complainant filed written argument.
5.       We have heard the arguments and considered the evidence led by the
complainant  and its  written and oral arguments.  In this case points
to be considered are as under:-
(a) Whether complainant is a consumer?
(b) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP1?
(c) Relief?
6.      Complainant in his affidavit has  deposed that he booked  TSR  no
DL 1RN 0853 and paid the booking amount of Rs. 5,000/- on 23.08.2012
and further paid  Rs 42,135/- through D.D.  This deposition  is
unrebutted  and supported with the copy of receipts of payment Ex. C2
and  copy of bank statement  Ex. C3 , hence complainant is a consumer.
7.      Complainant in his affidavit deposed that he has paid all the 16
EMIs against the entire loan amount which was deposited with the OP.
This deposition of complainant  is unrebutted and well supported with
the statement of  account of PNB ( Ex. C3 ) .  Hence , it is proved
that entire loan amount was paid to  OP1.   Complainant also deposed
in his affidavit that  he has sent a legal notice to the OP1 on
26.08.2015  demanding issuance of N.O.C. /Form no. 35 and this notice
was not replied and no NOC was issued to the complainant  which is
also unrebutted and well supported with a copy of notice Ex.C4 hence
OP1 failed to issue NOC/ Form no. 35 to complainant despite demand
which proves the deficiency in service on the part of OP1.
8.      Looking to the above facts and circumstances we are of the
considered opinion that  there is  deficiency in service on the part
of OP1 for not issuing the NOC / Form no. 35 to the complainant.
Accordingly we direct OP1 as under:-
1.       To pay  Rs. 10,000/- as mental harassment to the complainant.
2.       To pay Rs. 3,000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant.
9.       The entire above amount and NOC/ Form no.35 should be given to the
complainant within a period of 30 days failing which an interest of
18% p.a. will be payable from the date of order.
10.       Copy of the order be made available to the parties as per law.
File be consigned to record room.

Announced on this ………………