D.O.F:12/06/2020
D.O.O:09/06/2023
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC.58/2020
Dated this, the 09th day of June 2023
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Muhammed Ashraf aged 51 yrs
S/o Hasainar Haji
Valiyamoola House
P.O Alampady, Kasaragod. : Complainant
And
- The Manager,
ICICI Bank, City Center, Bank Road
(Adv: Lal.K.Joseph)
: Opposite Parties
- Signature Motors Kasaragod Pvt. Ltd
SA- Adiya Center Building, BC Road,
Vidyanagar P.O, Kasaragod.
(Adv: Ajaysekhar.C)
ORDER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
The case of the complainant is that he availed a vehicle loan from Opposite party No : 1 and bearing registration No: KL 14 X – 4750 from Opposite party No: 2 on 12/03/2019. The complainant successfully repaid the entire loan amount on 15/06/2019. The complainant approached Opposite party No :1 for NOC, but so far it is not given. The R.C of the vehicle still showing hypothecation to Opposite Party No:1. The non-issuance of NOC by Opposite party No:1 caused loss and severe mental agony to the complainant. Hence the complainant seeking a direction to compensation Opposite Party No:1 issue NOC and pay Rs. 50,000/ for mental agony.
The Opposite party No :1 filed statement submitting that the complainant will not come under the term complainant as per section 2 [b]of CP act 2019. According to Opposite party No : 1 the complainant has to update their R.C of his vehicle after closing the loan. Non receipt of NOC is due to the negligence of the complainant. on receipt of customers request auto loan was sanctioned to the complainant on 12/03/2019 for an amount of Rs. 71,000/-. Which is to be repaid by 36 monthly instalments. The complainant had closed the loan account on 15/06/2019 by foreclosure of the same remitting total amount of Rs. 74,545/-. But the complainant failed to update the R.C of the vehicle. Even though Opposite party continuously requested the complainant to update the same. This complaint is only experimental. The Opposite party No1 had not committed any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice and the complaint is not entitled for any claim.
The Opposite party No: 2 filed version admitting the purchase of scooty from his showroom. But he was not aware of the fore closure of the loan from Opposite party No :1. The Opposite party No: 2 further denied that he is not aware of the foreclosure of the loan and the further allegation including the cause of mental agony and amount sought as relief in the complaint is excessive. The Opposite party No: 2 had sold the vehicle to the complainant but he was not aware of loan or NOC of the vehicle. The Opposite party No: 2 is not a necessary party in this complaint and the complaint may be dismissed with compensatory cost.
The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and was cross examined as PW!. Ext A1 marked. Ext A1 is the loan account statement of complainant.
The issues raised for consideration are:
- Whether the complainant is a consumer?
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of Opposite party No :1 in non-issuance of NOC
- If so, what is the relief?
For convenience issues No:1,2 and 3 can be discussed together. Here the complainant purchased a Scooty on availing loan from Opposite party No: 1. The complainant repaid the full amount as on 15/06/2019. According to section 2(1) (b) of the CP Act 2019defines the term “complainant” is the person who makes complaint in consumer courts for remedy as to the defect in goods or deficiency in services. Here the complainant made complaint as to the deficiency in service of Opposite party No: 1. So the complainant is a consumer. While considering the second issue Ext A1 is loan statement of the complainant which proves that be has cleared the loan. The Opposite party No: 1 is bound to issue NOC to the complainant. But the Opposite party No: 1 had given an evasive statement blaming the complainant that he failed to update the R.C of his vehicle. Complainant can update the R.C of the vehicle only on issuance of NOC by Opposite party No: 1. The Opposite party No:1 produced Ext B1 to B3, Ext B1 is the true print of the scanned loan agreement, Ext B2 is the loan account statement of the complainant, Ext B3 is the true print out of the e mail tracker with IT certificate . While perusing the affidavit and documents produced by all parties we are of the opinion that the Opposite party No : 1 is legally bound to issue NOC to the complainant on closing the loan account then only the complainant can update the R.C of the vehicle. While evaluating Ext A1 and Ext B1 to B3 there is deficiency in service on the part of Opposite party No: 1in non issuance of NOC. Due to the non issuance of NOC the complainant suffered loss and severe mental agony. The complainant is entitled for relief, the complainant is entitled for the NOC of the vehicle also. The complainant is seeking a compensation of Rs.50,000/-for mental agony. But the claim is without any documentary evidence of such a huge loss. We are of the view that an amount of Rs. 10,000/- is a reasonable compensation in this case.
In the result complaint is partly allowed directing Opposite party No: 1 to issue NOC to the complainant along with a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) and also Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) towards cost.
Time for compliance is 30 days from receipt of copy of this judgment.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1- Loan account statement
B1- True print of the scanned loan agreement
B2- Loan account statement
B3- True print out of the e mail tracker with IT certificate
Witness Examined
Pw1- Muhammed Ashraf
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/
