IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR Present: Sri.K.Gopalan: President Smt.K.P.Preethakumari: Member Smt.M.D.Jessy : Member Dated this, the 26th day of December 2009 CC.232/2008 Sabu Uthup, Kaduppil House, Kanhirangad.P.O. Taliparamba. Complainant (Rep. by Adv.Nicholas Joseph) Managing Director, ICICI Bank Ltd., Videocon tower, 2nd floor, Block F 1. Jhandelwalan Extn, New Delhi 110055 (Rep. by Adv.Rajesh V Nair) Opposite party O R D E R Sri.K.Gopalan, President This is a complaint filed under section12 of consumer protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to issue loan clearance certificate and to pay a sum of Rs.25, 000/- as compensation and to return signed cheque leaves of complainant kept in the custody of the opposite party. The facts of the case of the complaint in nutshell are as follow: The complainant availed a construction equipment loan from the opposite party for purchasing JCB (earth mover). He closed the loan account by the pre payment including foreclosure charge. Complainant was constrained to sell the JCB. On receipt of the requisition for the foreclosure opposite party sent a demand notice stating the amount payable as Rs.2, 22,000/- for closing the loan amount. The amount was paid but the complainant could not sell his JCB since the opposite party did not issue the clearance certificate. After few months complainant received a notice on 13.8.07. From the opposite party with a demand to pay Rs.250/- He received another notice dated 15.11.07 from the opposite party to pay Rs.250/-.To avoid dispute complainant approached the Kannur branch office of opposite party. But they refused to receive the amount stating that they had no such direction from the Head office. But on 30.6.08 to a great shock complainant received a lawyer notice demanding for an amount of Rs.39, 763/- with a threat for dire consequences incase of non payment. It was stated in the notice that the amount demanded to pay was the dues payable up to 30.6.08. Details of calculation had not been given. Complainant sent a lawyer notice in reply to the opposite parties notice stating true facts of full payment of loan. The act of the opposite party is deficiency of service causing loses and hardship. Opposite party is not ready to settle the issue. Hence this complaint. Pursuant to the notice opposite party entered appearance and filed version denying the main allegation of complaint. The brief contention of the version is as follows: - Complainant had availed construction equipment loan from the opposite party. Complainant asked opposite party to foreclose the loan before the maturity period. But it is not correct to say that he has foreclosed as alleged in the complaint. Opposite party admits that they have issued notices demanding him to pay Rs.250/- on 13.8.07 and 15.11.07 respectively by mistake. The complaint is liable to pay Rs.70, 095/- as per the accounts. On account of non payment of the said amount opposite party bank refused to pay No objection certificate. The complainant is quite aware of his due but he intentionally refused to pay the amount. In fact the complainant is liable to pay Rs.70, 095/-. The opposite party is ready to give waiver of the said amount and the complaint is liable to pay Rs.3, 591/- only on payment of the said amount the bank will issue no objection certificate. There is no deficiency on the part of opposite party hence he is not entitled for any damage hence to dismiss the complaint. On the above pleadings, the following issues have been taken for consideration 1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite party? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the remedies as prayed in the complaint? 3. Relief and cost. The evidence consists of oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A10. No evidence adduced on the side of opposite party either oral or documentary. Issue Nos. 1 to 3 Admittedly the complainant had availed construction equipment loan. The case of the complaint is that he has paid the entire loan amount demanded by the opposite party but opposite party failed to issue clearance certificate and thereby complainant could not sell out his JCB excavator. Opposite party contended that the opposite party did not pay the amount and on payment of the amount bank will issue no objection certificate. ‘The counsel for the opposite party argued that after paying the amount the opposite party issued No objection certificate but the complainant was not ready to receive the No objection Certificate. So the opposite party produced No objection Certificate before the Forum on13.7.09. It can be seen that no objection certificate has been produced before the Forum on 14.8.09 and the complainant obtained the same. The complaint has been filed on 18.10.08. The case of the complainant is that he has closed the loan account by the prepayment of the entire loan amount including foreclosure charges and obtained receipt dated 16.1.06. Ext.A1 is the payment receipt dt. 16.1.06 Ext.A1 proves that complaint paid an amount of Rs.2, 22,000/- to opposite party Bank. The seal on the receipt reads thus: “If you foreclose the loan on or after 18thof the month requests you to please make a stop payment on your next installment”. Opposite party sent Ext.A2 letter on January 16, 2006. The amount is seen given under various heads and the total amount Rs.2, 22,000/- marked separately by ink. The notes given shows that company has taken the date of foreclosure as January 16, 2006. It is also added that for each day beyond this date an additional interest will be charged at the rate of Rs.29.37 per day. The date of payment receipt for an amount of Rs.2, 22,000/- in the name of the complainant shows 16.1.2006. It makes clear that the question of interest does not arise in the case of the complainant. Ext.A2 clearly reveals the particulars of the amount payable by the complainant as far as his construction equipment loan account .On the basis of Ext.A1 it is seen that complainant has discharged his liability in respect of the above said loan. If that be the case it is the bounden duty of the opposite party to issue No objection Certificate after making payment as per Ex.tA2. Ex.A3 dt.13.8.2007 and ex.tA4 dt.15.11.2007 are letters sent by opposite party advising him to remit an amount of Rs.250/-. It is not fair to give much relevancy for this letter in the light of the admission that these letters were issued by mistake. Ext.A5 is a lawyer notice dt.30.6.08 sent by the opposite party to complainant calling upon to make payment within a period of 7 days an amount of Rs.39, 763/- which has become due as a result of continuous default in making payment of contractual dues. The version filed by the opposite party does not speak of Et.A5 of such liability of the complaint for which such a legal notice was sent. Same amount was asked to earlier by Ext.A9. Ext.A6 is the reply sent by complainant denying the liability and stating that he has closed his entire loan account as early as on 16.1.06. It was also requested to issue clearance certificate but no result. The reason for the silence of opposite party on the legal notices Ext.A9 and A5 and of the reply Ext.A6 etc. are not without reason. Opposite party has no well founded case to resist the allegations and averments raised by the complainant. Opposite party has not even tried to place the concerned account before the Forum to show at least opposite party was certain liability with respect to the liability of the complainant on certain stage that prevented them in issuing the No objection certificate. It is so easy for the opposite party to produce the ledger of account to prove their case. Complainant denied his liability to pay the amount Rs.3, 591/-. Ext.A2 clearly shows that complainant was liable to Rs.2, 22,000/-. Ext.A1 proves that complainant has paid this amount on 16.1.2006. If Ext.A1 and A2 are correct there is no scope for further liability on the part of complainant. It is pertinent to note that opposite party did not challenge Ext.A1 or A2. Under such circumstances there is no need to hesitate to come into a conclusion that Ext.A1 is a document that proves beyond doubt that the complainant discharged the entire liability in connection with the construction equipment loan . The payment as per Ext.A1 proves beyond doubt that the complainant discharged the entire liability in connection with the construction equipment loan taking from the opposite party bank. In the light of the above discussion and perusal of the documents on record, we hold that there is unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party. Taking into consideration the fact that loan clearance certificate has been given to c0omplainnt during the course of trial, we are taking only a lenient view in awarding the compensation. Thus opposite party is liable to pay an amount of Rs.8, 590/- as compensation together with a sum of Rs.1000/- as cost of these proceedings. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to pay rs.8590/- (Rupees Eight Thousand Five hundred and Ninety only) as compensation and Rs.1000/-(Rupees One thousand only) as cost of this proceedings to the complainant, within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the due amount shall attract interest at the rate of 12% p.a from the date of filing of this complaint till realisation of the amount. The complainant is at liberty to execute the order after the expiry of 30 days as per the provisions of the consumer protection Act. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- President Member Member APPENDIX Exhibits for the complainant A1.Payment receipt issued by OP A2. to A4.Copies of the letter dt.16.1.06, 13.8.07,15.11.07, issued by OP A5.Copy of the letter dt.30.6.08 sent by Sheriff Associates A6.Copy of the lawyer notice sent to OP A7 & A8.Postal receipt and AD A9.Reply notice A10.Payment receipt Exhibits for the opposite party:Nil Witness examined for the complainant PW1.Complainant Witness examined for the opposite party: Nil /forwarded by order/ Senior Superintendent Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur | 
