IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA. Dated this the 5th day of February, 2011. Present:- Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) C.C.No.121/10 (Filed on 18.08.2010) Between: Anish Kumar. A, Chonnaru Veedu, Near St. Luke Hospital, Pathanamthitta. ..... Complainant. And: 1. The Manager, Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd., Geo Buildings, Pathanamthitta. 2. The Manager, Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd., C/o. Sarathy Motors, Pallimukku, Kollam. 3. The Secretary, Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd., Akurdi Port, Mumbai-Pune Road, Pune – 411 035, Maharastra. (By Adv. Reno Zac Vadakkethara) ..... Opposite parties. O R D E R Sri. N. Premkumar (Member): Complainant filed this complaint for getting a relief from the Forum. 2. Fact of the case in brief is as follows: Complainant purchased a Bajaj CT 100 Motor Bike of Reg.No.KL3M/5966 from 1st opposite party on 22.08.05. At the time of purchase, being canvassed by an employee under the 1st opposite party whose office was working in the same building, the complainant took purchase facility extended by the 3rd opposite party. The 2nd opposite party is the regional office of the 3rd opposite party. 3. The Hire Purchase facility availed by the complainant as proposal No.2325 required the complainant to repay the loan in 36 equal monthly instalments of ` 1,346 in addition to the payment of ` 3,120 on the date of purchase. As security for such payment, the opposite party had demanded and obtained 38 signed cheque leafs from the complainant’s father who stood guarantor to the transaction. The cheques and documents were executed and handed over to 1st opposite party at Pathanamthitta. At the time of availing the Hire Purchase facility the complainant had informed and 1st opposite party agree that all the instalments will be paid in cash by tendering before the 1st opposite party on or before the stipulated date of 1st of every month. It was further agreed that only in case of default in prompt payment would the cheques he presented. Though the purchase was made on 22.8.05, the 1st instalment started on 1st October 2005 itself. 4. From the 1st instalment onwards the complainant had been making advance payment of each instalment by cash before the 1st opposite party. The complainant has never defaulted even a single monthly payment till the 36th instalment. In the course of such payment, the opposite parties had returned a few such cheques the guarantor had issued to the opposite parties. Complainant had been transacting with the 1st opposite party alone, though the receipts issued were in the name of 2nd and 3rd opposite party. It is also noted that 1st and 2nd opposite parties were acting as agents of the 3rd opposite party. 5. After concluding the transaction when the complainant demanded cancellation of the Hire Purchase facilities, the 1st opposite party returned the original R.C. Book of the vehicle as well as the Duplicate Key which were being kept as collateral security by the opposite parties. The 1st opposite party further undertook to obtain and handover the No Objection Certificate for producing before the registering authorities without further delay. But whenever the complainant demanded NOC, the 1st opposite party would seek some more time under some pretext or other. Though the complainant contacted the opposite parties on 8.7.09, 8.8.09 and on various other dates in writing no response what so ever has been forth coming. The necessary NOC even long after the conclusion of transaction and full payment of all the stipulated instalments, amounts to gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. The complainant who has been planning to sell the said motorbike, but failed due to the absence of NOC. This caused much mental agony and financial loss. Hence this complaint for getting NOC with compensation and cost. 6. Opposite party has not entered appearance. Hence they were declared as exparte. 7. From the above pleadings, the following points are raised for consideration: (1) Whether the complaint is maintainable before this Forum? (2) Whether the reliefs sought for in the complaint are allowable? (3) Reliefs and Costs? 8. Point Nos. 1 to 3:- In order to prove the complainant’s case, complainant’s authorised representative was examined as PW1 and the documents produced by him has been marked as Ext.A1 toA3. Ext.A1 is the authorisation letter executed by the complainant. Ext.A2 series are the receipts (33 in number) issued by opposite parties. Ext.A3 is the statement of account for remitting the instalment. Ext.A3(a) is the relevant entry in Ext.A3. After the closure of evidence, complainant was heard. 9. According to the complainant at the time of purchase he had paid ` 3,120. On a perusal of evidence on record, it is learned that complainant has paid 34 instalments. Complainant also admit that after the remittance of entire dues, 1st opposite party has returned original R.C. Book and Duplicate Key of vehicle. Therefore, it is presumed that no further dues in connection with the hire purchase agreement from the complainant. But according to complainant opposite parties would not issued no objection certificate even though complainant approached several times. Therefore he cannot be in a position to approach the registering authority by effecting necessary changes thereby he cannot transfer the vehicle. According to complainant the said act of opposite parties caused much mental agony and distress. 10. On a perusal of Ext.A2 series and Ext.A3, it is crystal clear that complainant remitted 34 instalments. Complainant also admitted that 1st opposite party returned R.C. Book and Duplicate Key after completion of the said instalment dues. Therefore, opposite parties are bound to answer what prevented them to issue non-objection certificate after the clearance of entire instalment dues. Non-issuance of clearance certificate is a clear deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties and hence this complaint is maintainable before this Forum. 11. Opposite parties had neither appeared nor adduced any evidence either to prove their contention or to disprove the complainant’s case. Therefore complainant’s case stands proved unchallenged as against the opposite parties. Hence complaint is allowable with compensation and cost. 12. In the result, complaint is allowed, thereby opposite parties are directed to issue the non objection certificate required for making relevant endorsement in the R.C. Book with cost of ` 1,000 (Rupees One Thousand only) and compensation of ` 2,500 (Rupees Two Thousand Five hundred only) within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which opposite parties are directed to pay ` 20,000 (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) as compensation with the above said cost. Declared in the Open Forum on this the 5th day of February, 2011. (Sd/-) N. Premkumar, (Member) Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-) Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) : (Sd/-) Appendix: Witness examined on the side of the complainant: PW1 : Ayyappan Achary. Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant: A1 : Authorisation letter dated 16.8.10 executed by the complainant. A2 series : Receipts (33 in number) issued by opposite parties to the complainant. A3 : Statement of account for remitting the instalment. A3(a) : Relevant entry in Ext.A3. Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: Nil. Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: Nil. (By Order) Senior Superintendent. Copy to:- (1) Anish Kumar. A, Chonnaru Veedu, Near St. Luke Hospital, Pathanamthitta. (2) The Manager, Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd., Geo Buildings, Pathanamthitta. (3) The Manager, Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd., C/o. Sarathy Motors, Pallimukku, Kollam. (4) The Secretary, Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd., Akurdi Port, Mumbai-Pune Road, Pune – 411 035, Maharastra. (5) The Stock File. | 
