1. The present Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as, the “Act”) has been filed by the Complainant – Shailendra Sharma against the Order dated 05.02.2013 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jharkhand (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 341/2010, whereby, the Appeal filed by the Respondent - Magma Finance Corporation Ltd. was allowed and the Order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dhanbad (hereinafter referred to as the “District Forum”), was set aside.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner / Complainant had taken a loan for purchase of a truck from the Respondent on 16.09.2004 and on payment of the instalments, asked for ‘No Dues Certificate’ from the Respondent. However, the Respondent refused to give the NOC and demanded outstanding dues of Rs. 2,25,831/-, which was the interest on account of delay in making payments of the instalments.
3. Being aggrieved, the Complainant filed Complaint before the District Forum. The District Forum disposed of the Complaint with the direction to the Complainant to pay total outstanding dues of Rs. 2,25,831/- and the Petitioner was directed to issue NOC on receipt of the abovesaid amount.
4. The relevant portion of the Order of the District Forum in CC No. 164/2010, dated 03.09.2010 is reproduced herein:

“Under the circumstances it is clear that Complainant has already paid loan amount within 4 years as per agreement entered into the parties and delay of below one month cannot be considered as delay payment. Payment schedule does show defaulter to the Complainant. However Complainant is directed to pay due EMI if any alongwith Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) lump sum amount of DPS and other charges in total of outstanding dues of Rs. 2,25,831/- as claimed by the OP.

OP is directed to issue NOC (No Objection Certificate) within 5 (five) days to Complainant on receipt of above noted amount.”

5. Aggrieved by the Order of the District Forum, the Respondent appealed before the State Commission.

The State Commission, vide its Order dated 05.02.2013, set aside the Order passed by the District Forum and allowed the Appeal.

The relevant portion of the Order of the State Commission in First Appeal No. 341/2010, dated 05.02.2023 is reproduced herein:

• 6.        In such facts and circumstance the self contradictin conclusion can not be sustained. We further find that the impugned order has not been complied with by the complainant till 25-07-12. The dues if any has to be paid before issue of NOC as per law and agreement between the parties. In such circumstances the complainant was required to prove that all the dues were paid. We do not find any material on record to accept this.

7.         Having considered all the facts and the circumstances discussed above we set aside the order dated 3-09-10 and allow this appeal but without cost.”

6. Against the Order of the State Commission, the Complainant filed the present Revision Petition before this Commission with the following prayer:

“I)         To call for the records of Complaint Case No. 164/2010 from the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dhanbad, and the Appeal No. 341/2010 from the Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ranchi and pass appropriate orders in view of the submissions made herein above.

II)         To set aside / quash the orders passed by the Hon’ble Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ranchi on 05.02.2013 in Appeal No. 341/2010.

III)        To allow the petition of the Petitioner.

IV)       To order for the cost of the Appeal.”

7.  I have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and have gone through material available on record.
8. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that he has paid the entire amount as per the instalments fixed by the Respondent and that the question of any payment of delayed interest does not arise.  He submitted for setting aside the Order of the State Commission. The learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Petitioner has paid the total instalments, but on account of delay in making the payments, the total overdue interest, which has been compounded comes to Rs. 2,25,831/-. He further submitted that, on instructions, he is ready to waive off this penal interest and provide the NOC, which shall be valid for three months.
9. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that three months time is a short time and asked for nine months for the validity of the NOC.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Revision Petition is disposed of with the directions as under:

The Respondent shall handover the ‘No Dues Certificate’ for the loan amount taken by the Petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of this Order providing six months’ time for such NOC to be valid.