PER DR.(MRS.) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA,MEMBER

                Shorn of all unnecessary details, suffice it to mention here that this complaint has arisen on account of non-issuance of No objection Certificate (for brevity ‘NOC’) to the Complainant,  despite repeated requests.  It was alleged that the Complainant purchased a Tata Sumo vehicle by financing a sum of Rs.3,46,785/- from the OPs, which was to be repaid in 47 monthly installments of Rs.9673/- each. Her contention was that on payment of the entire amount with interest, she approached the OPs for issuance of NOC, numerous times. But when nothing concrete could come out, a legal notice was also served upon the OPs, but to no avail. Hence this complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.                Notice of the complaint was sent to OPs seeking their version of the case.

3.                OP No.1 & 2 in their joint reply admitted the factual aspects of the case. It was pleaded that the Complainant did not deposit the monthly installments in time and the installment amount deposited by the Complainant with the OPs was not based on correct calculation i.e. of penal interest and late payment charges, as per the agreed terms. In fact, the total outstanding dues of the Complainant after adjusting the amount already deposited was Rs.64,496/-, which she failed to deposit and rather, thrust this avoidable litigation upon the OPs. All other material contentions of the complaint were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

6.              The main grouse of the complainant is with regard to non-issuance of No objection Certificate by the OPs despite paying them the full financed amount of Rs.3,46,785/- along with interest.  Her contention is that as per the agreement the entire loan amount was returned in 47 monthly installments of Rs.9763/- each including interest for the period from May, 2004 to April, 2008 and if there was any delay in making the installment, the said installment was paid to the OPs with AFC/penalty charges.  In support of her contentions she has placed on record Annexure C-1, the copy of the repayment schedule supplied to her by the OPs which shows that she was liable to pay the monthly installment of Rs.9763/- for the period from May, 2004 to April, 2008 for which a cumulative interest of Rs.1,07,846/- was required to be paid by her on the financed amount of Rs.3,46,7865/-. Annexure C-2 to C-39 are the copies of the bank statement/receipts issued by OP-2, which have been placed on record to prove that she had deposited and cleared all the installments within the stipulated period by May, 2008 as per the agreement, whereafter OP-2 had sent a letter (Annexure C-40 dated 13.02.2008) to the R.T.O Chandigarh stating that they have no objection for changing the above said vehicle from commercial to personal vehicle. Thereafter, a letter Annexure C-41 dated 31.05.2008, regarding issuance of No due Certificate of the vehicle for cancellation of its hypothecation and returning of the security cheques were sent by her to the OPs, upon which a legal notice copy of which is Annexure C-43 dated 05.09.2008 was received by her from the OPs  through which it was alleged by the OPs that she had caused delay in payment under the agreement owing to which an amount of Rs.64,496/- against AFC and penal charges are required to paid by her in order to get NOC.

7.                On the other hand the OPs contended that the Complainant did not deposit the monthly installments for which she was liable for paying penal interest and late payment charges, as per the agreed terms, therefore, the total outstanding dues of the Complainant after adjusting the amount already deposited was Rs.64,496/-, which she had failed to deposit due to which she is not entitled for NOC. In support of their contentions they have placed on record Annexure R-1, the copy of the statement of account of the loan account of the complainant showing the detail of transactions and the residual balance of Rs.64,496/-.

8.                There is no dispute about the fact that the said vehicle of the complainant was got financed by the OPs and as per the agreement (which has not been placed on record by the parties), the said financed amount was to be repaid in 47 monthly installments of Rs.9763/- each including interest for the period from May, 2004 to April, 2008 and in case of any delayed installments, AFC and penalty charges were to be paid on it.  It is also not disputed that the complainant has repaid the financed amount of Rs. 3,46,785/- and Rs.1,19,676/- towards interest instead of Rs.1,07,846/- . This fact has been admitted by the OPs in para no. 7 of their reply also. The main point disputed by the OPs in the present complaint is that the complainant had delayed in paying some installments, therefore, as per the terms and conditions of the contract, in case of delay or default in payment, late charges @3% per month was payable on the delayed amount for the period of delay occasioned, which the complainant had failed to pay and had wrongly calculated the interest amount on delayed payment.  It is pertinent to mention here that apart from the bald assertions of the OPs, they have not been able to produce the copy of any contract/agreement to prove that they were entitled to charge such higher penal interest @3% per month, which goes to 36% per annum, in case there is any delay in payment of the said installment. Moreover, the highhandedness of the OPs is obvious from the fact that the complainant was not supplied the copy of the said agreement/contract, despite repeated requests vide letters Annexure C-46 dated 5.12.2009 and Annexure C-47 dated 25.01.2010, respectively. It appears that the OPs deliberately and intentionally have not produced the copy of the agreement agreed between the parties just to evade their liability to keep this Forum in dark and to grab the hard earned money of complainant by their illegal demand of residual balance of Rs.64,496/- as outstanding loan amount, which however is not proved by the OPs, that they were entitled for the same. In this backdrop, we are of the opinion that in the absence of any agreement/cogent evidence the complainant is not liable to pay the alleged amount as demanded by the OPs without giving any justification for the same.

9.                It has been admitted by the OPs in para no. 7 of their reply that the complainant had deposited a total sum of Rs.1,19,676/- towards interest instead of Rs.1,07,846/-, which clearly proves that  the complainant had made an excess payment of (Rs.1,19,676 – Rs.1,07,846 )= Rs.11,830/- towards late fee/AFC/penalty charges, on the principle amount and obviously the amount of Rs.1,19,676/- is more than that of the interest amount mentioned in the repayment schedule Annexure C-1. Otherwise also, perusal of Annexure C-4 dated 4.08.2004, which is the copy of cash receipt of Rs.9,850/- issued by the OPs after receiving the 6^th installment clearly shows that Rs.173/- as AFC (Penal interest) has been charged extra by the OPs in the 6^th installment, hence, it can clearly be made out that the AFC (Penal Interest) towards delayed payment, if any, were to be received from the complainant alongwith the monthly installments only. Therefore, in our opinion the record Annexure R-1, which is an unsigned computer generated statement of account, dated 28.08.2010 has no legal force which can be manipulated by the OPs at their whims, so as to suit their own course, has no legal force and hence of no help to the OPs. They have also not been able to prove if, Annexure R-1 was ever sent through any means to the complainant, before producing it to this Forum, to prove that they ever intimated the complainant to pay the residual balance of Rs.64,496/-outstanding loan amount, if any. An intimation regarding this was sent to the complainant by the OPs vide legal notice Annexure C-43 dated 05.09.2008, only when they received the letters Annexure C-41 dated 31.05.2008 and Annexure C-42 dated 02.08.2008, from the complainant regarding issuance of NOC and returning of the security checks. The financed amount was to be repaid by the complainant in 47 monthly installments till May, 2008, and the same has been paid by her is clear from the receipts Annexure C-2 to C-39, wherein the last installment was paid on 24.05.2008 vide Annexure C-39.  In this manner, it is crystal clear that the OPs are liable to issue the NOC to the complainant, as she has already duly repaid the whole loan amount alongwith interest and penalty charges, if any, as discussed Supra.  As such non issuing of NOC and returning of security cheques especially when the entire amount of loan has been repaid and that too within the stipulated time frame, definitely constitutes deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

10.              In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has sufficiently proved his case by way of documentary evidence against the OPs to hold them liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, for which they are liable to compensate the complainant for causing her mental agony and physical harassment by not issuing her NOC and returning the security cheques despite payment of the financed alongwith interest and AFC/penalty charges.  The complaint is accordingly allowed.  Therefore, the OPs are directed to issue the NOC in question and return the security cheques to the complainant.  The OPs shall also pay to the complainant Rs.25,000/- as compensation for causing her mental agony and physical harassment alongwith Rs.5,500/- as costs of litigation.  The order shall be fully complied with by the OPs within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the OPs would be liable to pay the afore said amount with penal interest @12% since, the filing of the present complaint i.e. 19.07.2010, till the order is fully complied with.

                Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.