Heard learned counsel for the appellant.None appears for the respondent.

2.      This appeal is filed u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter called the ‘Act’ in short). Parties hereinafter were arrayed as the complainants and OPs as per their nomenclature before the learned District Forum.

3.      The case of the complainantin nutshell is that the complainant has taken loan for an amount of Rs.4,28,000/- to purchase a SUMO vehicle from the OP. It was agreed between the  parties that the complainant would repay the loan in 48 monthly instalments amounting to Rs.10,610/- per instalment within April, 2009 but complainant paid entire loan within the stipulated period i.e. 1.3.2009 but NOC was not issued. Thereafter, complainant issued legal notice but no action was taken. So the complaint was filed.

4.      OP filed written version admitting about financing the complainant and the agreement executed between the parties. The complainant has paid the instalment but in delay. Therefore, delay payment charges of Rs. 36,357.12 were recoverable from the complainant. Complainant has issued the cheque but it was bounced. However, the OP submitted that the complainant has to pay delay payment charges Rs.36,357.12as arrear after which NOC can be issued. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on their part.

6.      After hearing both the parties, the learned District Forum passed the following order:-

“xxxxxxxxx

Thus under the circumstances we direct the OPs to issue NOC against the vehicle bearing Regd. No. OR16B-2339 to complainant within 30 days of receipt of this order without charging any other charge taking which the OP would be liable to pay Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred) per day till the date of issue of the NOC to the complainant after 30 days of receipt of this order.”

7.      Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned District Forum committed error in law by not passing any speaking order. He submitted that since the payment has been made in delay, so delay payment charges has been claimed. But the learned District Forum did not apply the judicial mind to such fact and law and passed the impugned order which is liable to be set aside by allowing the appeal.

8.      Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order including the DFR.

9.      Admittedly, complainant has incurred loan from the OP to pay the same in 48 instalments and he has paid all the instalments. The question only arises whether the complainant is entitled to pay delay payment charges. No agreement was filed before us to show that delay payment charges would be payable by the complainant. In absence of any document, the delay payment charges should not be demanded by the OP from the complainant. Therefore, we are of the view that there is nothing pending payable because of lack of proof and non-issuance of NOC is deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Therefore, the impugned order is confirmed and the appeal stands dismissed. No cost.

           DFR be sent back forthwith.

           Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.