Date of Filing      : 03.01.2020

                                                                                                                  Date of Disposal: 14.07.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

 

 BEFORE  TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law)                 .…. PRESIDENT

                 THIRU.J.JAYASHANKAR., B.A., B.L.,                                                         ....MEMBER-I

CC. No.03/2020

THIS THURSDAY, THE 14th DAY OF JULY 2022

 

P.Rajesh Kumar,

No.21/51, Kumaran Street,

Oragadam, Ambattur,

Chennai -600 053.                                                                               ……Complainant.

                                                                                       //Vs//

 

1.Mahindra &Mahindra Finance Services Limited,

    Rep.by its Branch Manager,

    1st Floor, J.S.Tower,

   Redhills Road, Ambattur, Chennai -600 053.

 

2.General Manager, Corporate Office,

    M/s.Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Service Limited,

    4th floor, Mahindra Towers,

    Dr.G.M.Bhosale Marg P.K.Kurna, Worli Mumbai – 400 081.

 

3.The General Manager,

    M/s.Mahindra & Mahindra,Old No.217, 

    New No.265,Great Southern Trunck Road,

    Chrompet, Chennai -600 044.                                                ..........Opposite parties. 

 

Counsel for the complainant                                                       :   M/s.UmaShankar, Advocate,

Counsel for the opposite parties                                                 :   Mrs.Bina Subhash, Advocate. 

                         

This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 29.06.2022 in the presence of M/s.UmaShankar Advocate, counsel for the complainant and Mrs.Bina Subhash Advocate, counsel for the opposite parties and upon perusing the documents and evidences produced by both sides, this Commission delivered the following: 

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI,   PRESIDENT.

 

This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties along with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to issue No Objection Certificate for the vehicle and to pay a sum of Rs.3,05,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards cost of this proceedings to the complainant. 

Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-

 

The crux of the complaint is that the complainant wanted to purchase one used FORD FIESTA CLASSIC 1.4 TDCI SXI FOUR wheeler bearing vehicle No.TN 01 AR 0174 from one Mr. K.A. Ravi Kumar.  In order to purchase the said vehicle, the complainant approached the 1st opposite party for availing loan facility and loan agreement was entered on 26.04.2016 vide agreement code No.4185127.  Accordingly Rs.2,50,000/- was sanctioned by the 1st opposite party and the instalments were fixed for 36 months and the instalments commenced from 10.05.2016 to 10.04.2019.  EMI amount was fixed at Rs.9,200/- and the complainant successfully paid all the instalments to the opposite party.  After the entire loan amount was settled, the complainant approached the 1st opposite party to issue No Objection Certificate but the 1st opposite party failed to issue the same and made the complainant to run from pillar to post and hence the complainant issued a notice on 22.11.2019 to the 1st opposite party requesting No Objection Certificate and for which there was no response from the 1st opposite party.  Thus the present complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service along with the prayer as mentioned below;

Directing the opposite party to issue the No Objection Certificate;

To pay a sum of Rs.3,05,000/- towards compensation for mental agony due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party with cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant. 

Defence of the opposite party:

The opposite parties 1 to 3 jointly filed a version disputing the complainant’s allegations contending interalia that the present complaint filed before this Consumer Commission is not maintainable and that this consumer Commission has no jurisdiction to try the complaint.  The opposite parties submitted that when the complainant approached the 3rd opposite party for a loan the 3rd opposite party had given the clear details of the finance amount, number of instalments, rate of interest, total amount to paid and the additional financial charges on delayed payments.  Further it is submitted that the loan amount was Rs.3,31,200/-  repayable in 36 equated monthly instalments of Rs.9,200/- each. One Mr.Helen & Mr.A.Edinbrought had also executed the loan agreement in the capacity of Co-applicant and Guarantor respectively.  The complainant and others have also agreed to pay the late payment charges @ 3% per month for each day of default on the due amount as per the terms of the loan agreement.  The complainant was not regular in paying his periodical instalments and only the first six instalments were paid in time and all other instalments were made with some delay. Thus it is submitted that when the agreement provides that on delayed payments there would be same additional financial charges, the same was levied accordingly.  Further the complainant has defaulted in honouring his cheques and several of the cheques were returned by the Banker and charges towards the same were also to be paid by the complainant. Hence it is submitted by the opposite parties that the additional financial charges claimed by them was the legitimate rights of the opposite parties, which had accrued due to the default of the complainant and the said rights was also be upheld by the National Consumer Commission.  The opposite parties thus contending that there was some balance payment to be made by the complainant and they are always ready to close the loan account and issue the No Objection Certificate sought for the dismissal of the complaint.

On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 were marked and on the side of the opposite parties proof affidavit was filed and documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 were marked.

Point for consideration:

Whether the opposite parties had committed any deficiency in service in not issuing the No Objection Certificate even after the entire loan amount was repaid by the complainant and if so to what relief the complainant is entitled?

Point

On the side of the complainant following documents were filed in support of the complaint allegations;

Statement of Account in the name of complainant issued by the opposite parties was marked as Ex.A1;

Legal notice issued by the complainant to the 1st opposite party dated 22.11.2019 was marked as Ex.A2;

Acknowledgement card for the proof of service was marked as Ex.A3;

 On the side of the opposite parties following documents were filed in support of their contentions;

The Loan Agreement between the parties dated 26.04.2016 was marked as Ex.B1;

Reply letter issued by the 1st opposite party to the complainant’s counsel dated 18.02.2019 was marked as Ex.B2;

Notice issued by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant dated 03.03.2020 was marked as Ex.B3;

Statement of account issued by the 1st opposite party in the name of complainant was marked as Ex.B4;

Heard the both side counsels’ oral arguments and perused the written arguments filed by them.  The summary of the arguments by the counsel for the complainant is that there was no due to be paid by the complainant and the entire loan amount was paid as per the Statement of Accounts (Ex.A1).  It is his further contention that the penalties for the two cheques bounced were also paid and thus all the dues were cleared by him as on 10.03.2020.  Further, he argued that the reply notice Ex.B2 was a forged one and it was issued only after the complaint was filed on 03.01.2020 and thus he prayed for the complaint to be allowed.

On the other hand, the counsel for the opposite parties admitted that the entire loan amount was repaid but it is his specific arguments that the monthly instalments were not paid on 10th of every Month as agreed in the loan agreement.  Further he cited the Ex.B1 document to show that the complainant had agreed for payment of penalty for the delayed payment. It is further argued that no receipts were filed by the complainant to show that the payments were made in time.

We also perused the written arguments filed by both parties and appreciated the oral arguments of the both side counsels.  It is not disputed by both parties that the entire loan amount was repaid and the issue was only with regard to the late payment charges.  The Statement of Account (Ex.A1) shows that the 1st instalment date commenced on 10.05.2016 and the last instalment on 10.04.2019.  It is also seen that there are some late payment in the months of November, December in 2016 by the complainant.  Further there are also some cheque return charges received by the opposite parties.  However, as per the statement of account (Ex.B4) produced by the opposite party it is seen that there was some balance payment towards the interest additionally levied for the delayed payment.  Further Rs.1000/- was also levied for two cheques bounced towards the payment of instalments. In such circumstances, we cannot ignore Ex.B1 the loan agreement sign by the Borrower, Co-Borrower and Guarantor along with Lender.  It is clearly mentioned as per clause 12(a) “pay to the Lender such monies in payment where of default shall have been made with interest thereon at 3% per month from the date of the default till the payment and shall pay to the Lender all claims, damages, loss, cost, charges or expenses which the Lender may suffer, incur of be put to as a result of default by the borrower”.  The said clause cannot be ignored for the reason that the said the document has be signed by all the parties.  In this circumstance as per the Ex.B4 the Statement of Account produced by the opposite parties shows an amount of Rs.21,890/- towards additional financial charges and Rs.1000/- towards cheque returned charges and totally an amount of Rs.22,890/- to be payable by the complainant to the opposite parties. Therefore the claim of the complainant for closer of the account and issuance of No Objection Certificate could not be entertained.  Hence we are of the view that the complainant can claim for the closer of loan account and NOC only after clearing the pending dues to the opposite parties. Thus we answer the point accordingly holding that the opposite parties had not committed any deficiency in service to the complainant in not closing the loan account and in not issuing No Objection Certificate to the complainant and resultantly the complainant is not entitled any relief from the opposite parties.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No order as to cost.

Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 14th day of July 2022.

 

         -Sd-                                                                                                              -Sd-

 MEMBER-I                                                                                                    PRESIDENT

 

List of document filed by the complainant:-

 

Ex.A1 ................. Statement of account. Xerox

Ex.A2 22.11.2019 Notice sent by the complainant tothe ops Xerox

Ex.A3 .............. Acknowledgement card. Xerox

 

List of documents filed by the opposite parties; 

 

    Ex.B1 26.04.2016 Loan agreement between the parties. Xerox

Ex.B2 18.02.2019 Reply notice. Xerox

Ex.B3 03.03.2020 Notice issued by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant. Xerox

Ex.B4 ................. Statement of account. Xerox

 

 

 

        -Sd-                                                                                                            -Sd-

  MEMBER-I                                                                                               PRESIDENT