ORDER BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT- MR. P.K. PADHI:

                                                                                         JUDGMENT

      Complainant has filed this consumer complaint U/s.35 of C.P. Act, 2019 seeking following reliefs;

   “Direct the opposite parties to grant clearance certificate of loan”.

  The brief fact of the case is that, the complainant availed a hire purchase loan of Rs.1,95,000/- financed by Tata Motors Finance Ltd., Jajapur Branch and purchased a Tata Nano Car bearing Regd. No.OD-05-P-3818 on 20.7.2015. The agreeing inter alia to liquidate loan on 55 EMIs fixed at Rs.5,137/- with effect from 15.8.2015 to 15.02.2020. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement and accordingly the complainant has paid his monthly installments till 15.6.2016 regularly and due to misfortune the said insured car caught with fire due to mechanical defect while plying on the road on 19.6.2016. The complainant immediately lodged a written complaint before the opposite parties. On receipt of the complaint opposite party No.5 deputed its surveyor who visited the spot and assessed loss and assured for settlement of claim at an early date on 06.10.2016. The vehicle has been settled for Rs.2,35,000/- as the total loss assessed by the competent authority subject to cancellation of the registration of the insured vehicle duly endorsed by concerned RTO on 12.6.2019. In spite of payment of all dues of loan account the opposite party No.3 did not grant NOC against the loan availed by the complainant and took a deaf ear to it deferring the date in hanky pankey manner till date.

   The opposite parties No.1 to 4 in their written version stated that, the complaint filed by the complainant being vague, vexatious, frivolous having foundation of concocted stories with mala fide intention, devoid of any merit and hence, the consumer complaint is liable to be dismissed in limine with exemplary cost. The opposite parties and the complainant are the financer and borrower respectively being bound by the terms and conditions of loan agreement duly executed.

  The opposite party No.5 has also filed written version and he is normal party and we are not discussing his version as he has already settled the dispute and release the amount and it is because of non issue of loan clearance certificate or duplicate NOC, the amount is kept pending.

   We have heard all the parties facts are not disputed. The vehicle in question has been damaged due to fire. The opposite parties No.1 to 4 in their letter dtd.20.8.2019 have stated as under;

            “You have approached TMFL and offered to settle your aforesaid amount. As per our natural discussion we unders and that, you are ready to pay an amount of Rs.80,000/- (Rupees eighty thousand only) against full and final closure of the captioned loan account.

            Henceforth, trusting upon the commitments made by you, we have agreed to receive an amount of Rs.80,000/- in full and final settlement of the captioned amount provided that the same is paid strictly as per below mentioned schedule.

Accordingly complainant immediately deposited of Rs.20,000/- on the same day and Rs.60,000/- on 13.9.2019. Accordingly the complainant has complied the settlement as was offer by the opposite parties No.1 to 4 which is also reflected in the status of loan account which reveals closed, as per the documents filed on 02.8.2022 along with the memo.

    It is not at all disputed that the vehicle was damaged due to fire and it was insured to opposite party No.5. It is after acceptance of final settlement by the opposite parties No.1 to 4, the opposite party No.5 settled the claim for Rs.2,35,000/- (Rupees two lakhs thirty five thousand only) on total loss basis by the competent authority subject to cancellation of registration of the insured vehicle duly endorsed by the concerned RTO. This letter dt.06.10.2016 was also issued to opposite parties No.1 to 4 by opposite party No.5 after which the opposite parties No.1 to 4 are sitting over the matter and not releasing the loan clearance certificate or duplicate NOC for which the amount sanctioned by opposite party No.5 is still lying with opposite party No.5.

     Since the opposite parties No.1 to 4 have accepted the settlement offer and received the amount as per their offer of Rs.80,000/- to be deposited by the complainant on or before 15.9.2019 and the complainant has deposited the said amount. The letter dt.06.10.2016 at annexure 3 was issued by opposite party No.5 to the complainant with copy to opposite parties No.1 to 4. Even if it is not within their knowledge as per their own settlement offer the opposite parties No.1 to 4 have accepted the offer for which the opposite p arties No.1 to 4 are estopped to violate their own letter dt.20.8.2019.

    We therefore direct the opposite parties No.1 to 4 to issue loan clearance certificate, or, NOC or duplicate NOC to the complainant without asking for any amount. We are not imposing any cost or compensation on opposite parties No.1 to 4 as they have settled the loan with less amount and we are also not imposing any cost and compensation on opposite party No.5 as they are ready to pay the amount and it is only held up due to noncompliance of NOC. In case the loan clearance, or, NOC or, duplicate NOC shall not be issued by the opposite parties No.1 to 4 within 45 days from the date of order, then the opposite parties No.1 to 4 shall pay Rs.200/- per day to the complainant. The opposite party No.5 shall release the amount on receipt of the loan clearance certificate, or NOC or, duplicate NOC within 15 days. If any delay occurred on the part of opposite party No.5, he shall pay Rs.100/- per day to the complainant. With the aforesaid observation and direction the consumer complaint is disposed of. No cost.                        

   Pronounced in the open Commission on this 6^th Jan .,2023.