Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 24.
Instituted on : 05.03.2013.
Decided on : 11.05.2016.
- Rajiv son of Bhim Singh resident of Kheri Sampla Tehsil Sampla District Rohtak.
- Manoj son of Rajender Singh resident of Kailash Colony H.No.856/21 Rohtak.
………..Complainants.
Vs.
Mahadev Auto Agency, Prime Finance Company, Office Shop No.16, Subhash Road Rohtak through its Manager.
……….Opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
VED PAL, MEMBER
Present: Sh.Karan Singh, Advocate for the complainants.
Sh.Subhash Dhull Advocate for opposite party.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that complainant no.1 got the auto rickshaw financed from the opposite party for Rs.75000/- in Rs.3500/- in 29 equal installments for payment of the loan and the complainant paid all the installments to the opposite party alongwith the R.C., Public carrier permit and the complainant no.1 sold the vehicle to the complainant no.2 after receiving full and final payment and gave an affidavit in support thereof dated 26.10.2009 but the NOC and clearance of the R.C. was not given by the opposite party to the complainants. It is averred that after full payment complainants requested the opposite party to provide the NOC and clearance of R.C. but the opposite party refused to do so and are demanding more money for the N.O.C. It is averred that the act of opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to provide the N.O.C and clearance of the R.C. and also to compensate the complainant with Rs.10000/-.
2. On notice, the opposite party appeared and filed its written reply submitting therein that it is admitted that the complainant No.1 got the auto rickshaw financed from the opposite party for Rs.75000/- and he was to pay 30 installments of Rs.3500/- per month each. It is also submitted that the total cost of vehicle was Rs.115000/-, Rs.3000/- was insurance charges, Rs.2500/- were file charges and thus total amount payable by the complainant was Rs.120500/- and out of said amount Rs.75000/- was loan amount. Out of remaining amount of Rs.45500/- the complainant no.1 paid Rs.23000/- in cash and he was also to pay the remaining amount of Rs.22500/- alongwith 30 installments of Rs.3500/- is payable by the complainant no.1 and without payment of said amount NOC cannot be issued. It is averred that the complainant no.1 has illegally sold the vehicle to complainant no.2 without clearing the loan amount. It is averred that only after payment of full loan amount, NOC can be issued to him. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied. Opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
3. Both the parties led evidence in support of his case.
4. Complainant in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C24 and has closed his evidence. On the other hand ld. counsel for the opposite party tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and has closed his evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present case it is not disputed that the complainant No.1 had taken loan from the opposite party and the repayment of same is also not disputed. The grievance of the complainant is after the repayment of loan he requested the opposite party to issue Loan Clearance Certificate and N.O.C. but the opposite party did not pay any heed to his requests. To prove his case complainant has placed on record copy of receipts Ex.C1 to Ex.C20 & Ex.C24 respectively whereby the complainant has deposited the loan amount. Complainant has also placed on file copy of R.C. Ex.C21 & Ex.C22 and copy of permit Ex.C23. On the other hand, contention of ld. counsel for the opposite party is that complainant has not cleared all his dues and without clearing the dues NOC cannot be issued.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the complainant no.1 had paid 31 installments of Rs.3500/- each i.e. total Rs.108500/- vide receipts Ex.C1 to Ex.C20 & Ex.C24. But the NOC and clearance of the R.C. has not been issued to the complainant on the ground that the complainant has not repaid the entire loan amount. But to prove its contention, opposite party has not placed on record any document e.g. statement of account/loan account etc. Hence it is not proved on file that the complainant has not paid the entire loan amount to the opposite party. In this regard reliance has been placed upon the law of evidence Vol. II. Part III Production and Effect of Evidence whereby as per Section 101 it is submitted that: “Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist”. We have also placed reliance upon the law cited in IV(2013)CPJ 251(NC) titled Muthoot Leasing and Finance Ltd. Vs. Sabu whereby Hon’ble National commission has held that: “Repayment of entire amount-Issuance of no objection certificate denied-Exorbitant amount claimed-Mental agony and financial loss-Deficiency in service-District Forum allowed complaint-National Commission upheld the order of District Forum allowing the complaint”.
8. In view of the aforesaid case laws which are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that opposite party has failed to establish any outstanding dues against the complainant No.1 and due to non-issuance of Non-clearance certificate and NOC after repayment of loan the complainant might have suffered some irreparable loss. As such the opposite party is directed to provide clearance of R.C. and N.O.C. alongwith an amount of Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) as lump-sum compensation to the complainant No.1. Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
10. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
11.05.2016.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
………………………………
Ved Pal, Member
