O R D E R Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President. Petitioner's case is as follows: Petitioner availed a car loan of Rs. 2,70,000/- from the opposite party for purchasing a TATA Indica Car. As per the agreement between the petitioner and the opposite party the EMI was fixed at Rs. 8580/- for 36 months. The complainant issued 35 cheques starting from cheque No. 15661 to 15695 to the opposite party. Out of which the opposite party had not presented cheque No. 15678 Dtd: 1..8..2005. The petitioner on request of the opposite party issued draft for Rs. 8580/- towards replacement of cheque No. 15678. The petitioner paid the entire loan amount but the opposite party has not issued no objection certificate to the petitioner. So, the petitioner was not able to cancel the hypothecation and sell the vehicle at the prevailing market value. Due to the delayon the side of opposite party the value of the vehicle was considerably diminished to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- and for taking comprehensive policy inspite of third party policy the -2- petitioner had to pay an additional amount of Rs. 6000/- so, the petitioner prays for allowing Rs. 60,000/- on account of damages and he seeks direction of the Forum to return cheque No. 15678 Dtd: 1..8..2005, detained by the opposite party, and to issue non objection certificate to the petitioner. The opposite party has not entered appearance or filed any version even after the receipt of the notice from the Forum. So, the opposite party is set ex-parte. The evidence in this case consists of the affidavit filed by the petitioner Ext. A1 and A2 documents. Points for determination are: i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? ii) Relief and cost? Point No. 1 The petitioner on 17..10..2006 issued a letter to the opposite party the said letter produced is marked as Ext. A1. In Ext. A1 the petitioner stated that as per the statement of his bank accounts appended to Ext. A1 letter it canbe seen that cheque for the 18th instalment of 18..6..2005 was not encashed. So, he requested the opposite party to verify the accounts and to make arrangement for sending. No objection certificate to the petitioner. The opposite party as reply to Ext. A1 requested for a draft for Rs. 8580/- against the EMI of August 2005. The opposite party on 20..12..2006 sent the D.D for Rs. 8580/- as demanded by the opposite party. The petitioner in addition to D.D issued a letter on 20..12..2006 demanding return of the cheque and no objection certificate the said document is marked as Ext. A2. But the opposite party even after receipt of Ext. A2 -3- neither issued any no objection certificate nor replied to Ext. A2. The case of the petitioner is proved by filing of the affidavit and Ext. A1, A2 documents. Since the opposite party has not rendered any evidence in contra. So, the evidence of the petitioner stands unchallanged. We are of the opinion that the said act of the opposite party by detaining the cheque and the non-issuance of the no objection certificate after paying the entire E.M.I by the petitioner is a clear deficiency of service. What had happened, without saying definitly caused much hardship, sufferings and pain to the petitioner. So, point No. 1 is found accordingly. Point No. 2 In view of the findings in point No. 1, petition is allowed and the petitioner is entitled for the reliefs sought for. In the result, the opposite party is ordered to return the cheque bearing No. 15678 to the petitioner. The opposite party is ordered to issue a non objection certificate to the petitioner. The petitioner is entitled for compensation for the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. In the absence of evidence with regard to quantum of compensation we are of the opinion that allowing. Rs. 10,000/- as compensation is reasonable. So, the opposite party is ordered to pay the petitioner an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for the deficiency in service. The opposite party is also ordered to pay Rs. 1000/- as cost of the proceedings. The order shall be complied with within 30 days of receipt of the order. Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant, corrected by me and -4- pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of May, 2008.
......................Bindhu M Thomas ......................Santhosh Kesava Nath P
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
