By Sri. Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member.
The grievances of the complainant are in brief:-
1. It is submitted by the complainant that the complaint is filed on behalf of his son named Shamseer. The son of the complainant had availed a loan of Rs. 3,93,000/- from the opposite party to purchase a Renualt Kwid 10 RTX AMT vehicle. The vehicle number is KL 71 G 2636. As per loan agreement, the interest of loan amount was fixed in flat rate, repayment was fixed in 48 monthly installments of Rs. 11,600/- each. Accordingly, son of the complainant had remitted entire instalments during the period between April, 2019 and March, 2023. After closure of loan the complainant had approached Nilambur branch of the opposite party to avail NOC to cancel endorsement of hypothecation from Certificate of Registration of the vehicle. But the opposite party had demanded Rs. 95,000/- to issue NOC to the vehicle. Subsequently, the complainant had remitted Rs.10,500/- to the opposite party and demanded written details of due amount claimed by the opposite party . But the opposite party did not issue details of alleged due amount. It is admitted by the complainant that he had committed default in repayment of 3 installments during the period of covid 19 pandemic. But due of 3 installments were already been paid to the opposite party. However the opposite party demanded a huge amount as penal and compound interest for 3 due instalments. It is averred that the complainant is not liable to pay any amount as demanded by the opposite party and no application for moratorium was submitted during the period of covid 19 pandemic. The complainant issued a legal notice to the opposite party demanding NOC to cancel endorsement of hypothecation remark. In reply, the opposite party demanded only Rs. 39,239/- instead of Rs.95,000/-. So the complainant decided to pay the amount in order to avoid long pending litigation and consequential financial and time loss. Hence the complainant approached the opposite party to collect NOC after making payment as demanded by them. But unfortunately the opposite party demanded Rs. 95,000/- again instead of Rs. 39,239/- as claimed in reply notice. It is averred that the opposite party did not issue NOC and threatened to take possession of vehicle. According to the complainant, the opposite party is not entitled for any amount and the complainant is got every right to get NOC to cancel endorsement of hypothecation. The acts of the opposite party are amounted to deficiency in service causing mental agony and hardship to the complainant. So the complainant prayed for directions to the opposite party to issue No Objection Certificate to cancel endorsement of hypothecation in Certificate of Registration of the vehicle, to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainant as compensation for the sufferings of mental agony and hardship and to pay Rs.25,000/- as cost of litigation.
2. The complaint is admitted and issued notice to the opposite party. The opposite party appeared and submitted written version.
3. It is contended that the complainant is not a consumer. The opposite party made total denial of entire averments in the complaint, but issuance of loan amount is admitted. It is contended that the complainant had availed moratorium of 4 months period from May, 2020 to August, 2020 and the complainant had wilfully defaulted payment of installments. The averments in the complaint that repayment of entire instalments, demand of Rs. 95,000/- made by the opposite party, payment of Rs. 10,500/- made by the complainant, default of 3 installments and its lump sum payment and non-issuance of NOC are denied by the opposite party. It is contended that the opposite party did not reject request for written details of loan due amount. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, hence the complainant is not entitled for any reliefs.
4. The complainant and the opposite party have submitted proof affidavits in lieu of evidence. The documents produced by the complainant are marked as Ext. A1 to A3. Ext. A1 document is the copy of loan account details of the complainant. Ext. A2 document is the copy of legal notice dated 05/05/2023 issued by the complainant. Ext. A3 document is the copy of reply notice dated 31/05/2023 issued by the opposite party. There is no document from the side of the opposite party.
5. Heard both parties in detail. Perused documents and affidavits availed for scrutiny. The Commission considered following points to adjudicate the matter.
(i) Whether the acts of the opposite party are amounted to deficiency in service?
(ii) Relief and cost?
6. Point No.(i) & (ii)
The Commission is considered both points together for the sake of brevity and convenience. The grievance of the complainant is that even after closure of loan which was availed by his son from the opposite party, they did not issue No Objection Certificate to cancel endorsement of hypothecation from Certificate of Registration of vehicle number KL 71 G 2636. It is argued by the complainant that his son had availed a loan of Rs.3,93,000/- from the opposite party to purchase a vehicle and EMI was fixed Rs.11,600/- each for 48 monthly instalments. The complainant further argued that his son had repaid entire instalments as per Ext.A1 document. But after closure of loan, the opposite party did not issue No Objection Certificate to cancel hypothecation. Moreover, the opposite party also demanded Rs.95,000/- from the complainant to issue No Objection Certificate. Hence the complainant issued a legal notice to the opposite party demanding to issue No Objection Certificate. The copy of notice is produced and marked as Ext.A2 document. It also argued that after issuance of Ext.A2 document, the opposite party had demanded Rs. 39,239/ as due of loan amount through reply notice and the same is marked as Ext. A3 document. According to the complainant during the period of Covid 19 pandemic he had committed default in payment of instalments, but he had repaid those due amount in lump sum and closed loan within its tenure. So the opposite party is liable to issue No Objection Certificate.
7. On the other hand the opposite party argued that the complainant did not close the loan availed from them and Rs. 1,05,817/- is remained as due . It is further argued that the complainant had availed moratorium for 4 EMIs covering from May, 2020 to August, 2020. Moreover the complainant is not a consumer and he is incompetent to approach this Commission.
8. In the evaluation of evidence, it can be seen that the complainant did not produce any document except Ext.A1 document, to show that son of the complainant had made repayment of entire loan amount to the opposite party and he is entitled for NOC. The admitted facts are that son of the complainant availed a loan of Rs. 3,93,000/- from the opposite party and EMIs are fixed as Rs.11,600/- each and the complainant was liable to make repayment of loan in 48 installments. The complainant is also admitted that he had committed default in making repayment of 3 monthly instalments during the period of covid-19 pandemic and he had paid those due amount in lump sum. But according to the opposite party, the complainant had availed moratorium of 4 monthly instalments and now due amount is reached to the tune of Rs.1,05,817/-. But, when evidence of the complainant is examined, it can be seen that he is adhered with Ext.A1 document to prove repayment of entire loan amount. But Ext.A1 document would show that the complainant had remitted a total of Rs. 4,98,581/- to the opposite party during period between April , 2019 and March, 2023. But as per loan agreement the complainant was liable to make repayment of a total of Rs. 5,56,800/- to the opposite party in 48 monthly instalments. So it is revealed from evidence that the complainant was committed default of Rs.58,219/- in making repayment of entire loan. The Commission find that the complainant has failed to prove that he had made repayment of entire loan amount with cogent evidence. At the same time the Commission also gone through Ext.A3 document issued by the opposite party. As per Ext.A3 document overdue amount is Rs.39,239/-. But in the version no specific amount is claimed by the opposite party. At the time of adducing evidence, the complainant has claimed Rs.78,479/- from the complainant as overdue amount. It is needless to say that the Commission need not look into inconsistency in the contention of the opposite party. The Commission find that there is no merit in the pleadings of the complainant, hence it is dismissed
Dated this 17th day of September, 2024.
MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN.C, MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL.C.V, MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1 to A3
Ext.A1: Copy of loan amount account details of the complainant.
Ext.A2: Copy of legal notice dated 05/05/2023 issued by the complainant.
Ext A3: Copy of reply notice dated 31/05/2023 issued by the opposite party.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Nil
MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN.C, MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL.C.V, MEMBER
