Punjab

Sangrur

CC/396/2016

Ajit Pal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Megma Fin Corporation Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Kali Ram Garg

25 Oct 2016

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                                       

                                                        Complaint no. 396                                                                                         

                                                         Instituted on:   13.05.2016                                   

                                                        Decided on:    25.10.2016

 

Ajit Pal Singh son of Jaswant Singh resident of VPO Kheri Kalan, Tehsil Dhuri District Sangrur.

                                                …. Complainant

                                Versus

 

1.     Megma Fin Corporation Ltd. Registered Office, 24, Park Street, Calcutta-700016 through its M.D.

 

2.     Branch Manager, Megma Fin Corporation Ltd. SCF 44, Ground Floor, Maharaja Ranjit Singh Nagar, Outside Sunami Gate, Sangrur.

                                              ….Opposite parties.

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT      :     Shri  Sachin Garg, Adv.                          

 

FOR THE OPP. PARTIES         :     Shri Mohinder Ahuja, Adv.                         

 

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

K.C.Sharma, Member

Sarita Garg, Member

     

 

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Ajit Pal Singh, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he had obtained  loan from the OPs  and an agreement was executed between the parties on 25.02.2013. The complainant paid the entire loan amount along with upto date interest on 4.1.2016 and  requested the OPs to issue the No objection certificate. The OPs are bound to issue the NOC within 15 days of the clearance of the loan i.e. from 04.01.2016.  After several  visits of the complainant to the office of the OP no.2  a message dated 28.04.2016 was received, which is as under" Dear Customer, NOC for loan is under process. Please visit our branch after 10 days to collect the same with your photo, ID proof". The Office of OP no.2 instead of issuing  the NOC obtained Rs.500/-  more from the complainant without disclosing the nature of deposit   and complainant requested to issue the NOC and to refund Rs.500/- besides Rs.31/- but the Official of OP no.2 flatly refused to accede to the request of the complainant. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:-

i)      OPs be directed to issue NOC of the car in question and to refund Rs.531/-

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.10000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment,

iii)   OPs be directed to pay Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by the OPs,  it is denied that at the time of clearing the  loan amount by the complainant requested for No objection certificate. It is submitted that the OPs are bound to issue  the NOC within 15 days of the clearance of loan i.e. 15 days from 04.01.2016 .  It is correct that OP No.2 sent a message dated 28.04.2016.  It is further stated that the  official of the OP made a call number of times to the complainant between  11.05.2016 to 22.06.2016 to receive the NOC  but he failed to visit the office of the OP to receive the NOC. Thereafter  official of the OP sent a NOC to the complainant through registered post on 22.06.2016. It is also stated that  as per rule of the company, if any borrower or any person wants to statement of account after terminate/ close the loan agreement  then Rs.500/-  is chargeable for giving the statement. As per rule of company the OPs have legally right to receive the amount of Rs.500/- from the complainant to issue the statement of account to the complainant  It is also denied that the  charging  of Rs.31/- over and about the interest payable by the complainant  and Rs.500/-  on 10.05.2016 without disclosing the nature of deposit. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.

3.             The complainant in his  evidence has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OPs have tendered documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-6 and closed evidence.

4.             It is undisputed on record that the complainant had obtained loan from the OPs and an agreement was executed between the complainant and  OPs on 25.02.2013. Now, the main point of controversy in the present complaint is regarding the non-issuance of  no objection  certificate  and  also charging of Rs.500/-  from the complainant.

5.             In the instant case, it has been alleged by the complainant that  he paid the entire loan amount along with interest on 04.01.2016 and thereafter he requested the OPs to issue the no objection certificate which was to be issued within 15 days of the clearance of the loan i.e. 15 days from 04.01.2016 but the OPs did not issue the same rather illegally charged Rs.500/- more on 10.05.2016. Against the version of the complainant,  the Ops in their reply have stated  that the complainant had not requested   them to issue the no objection certificate  at the time of clearing the loan amount rather  official of the OPs made a call number of time to the complainant  between 11.05.2016 to 22.06.2016  to receive the NOC but complainant failed to visit the  office of OPs  and thereafter  the OPs sent no objection certificate  to the complainant through registered post on 22.06.2016.

6.             We have perused the entire documents produced on record and heard the learned counsel for the parties,  we find that  OPs themselves have stated in their reply that "  The opposite parties  are bound to issue the NOC within 15 days of the clearance  of loan i.e. 15 days from 04.01.2016 as alleged by the complainant ".  It is not the case of the OPs that complainant had not paid the entire loan amount on 04.01.2016.  The complainant has produced on record receipt dated 04.01.2016 Ex.C-1 showing  the payment of entire amount.  So, we  feel it is the duty of the Ops to issue the no objection certificate  within 15 days after clearing the entire loan amount i.e. from 04.01.2016 but they did not do so.

7.             Another aspect of the case is that the complainant had stated that the OPs have charged Rs.500/- more  for issuance of the no objection certificate but the OPs have stated that they have charged Rs.500/- from the complainant for issuing of statement of account after termination of agreement.  Surprisingly, the Ops have not produced any document on record showing that the complainant had applied for copy of statement of account  after termination of agreement nor  they have produced any evidence which could show that the agreement was terminated.  Moreover, the OPs have not produced on record any copy of agreement executed between them and complainant wherein  it has been mentioned that after termination of agreement, the  OPs are entitled to charge Rs.500/- for issuance of the statement of account. The Ops have not produced on record call details showing  the detail of calls made to the complainant for collecting the NOC  nor they have produced  any copy of letter written to the complainant for receipt of NOC. Rather the OPs have admitted that  they have sent a message to the complainant on 28.04.2016 wherein OPs themselves mentioned that NOC is under process. Further, the OPs have admitted that the NOC was sent to the complainant  through registered post on 22.06.2016 which we find that the same was sent to the complainant after a long period delay of  more than five months during the pendency of the present complainant. In support of his case, learned counsel  of the complainant has cited a ruling namely Centurian Bank of Punjab Vs. Som Chand Katia, 2008 (2) CPC 583 wherein  it has been held by the Hon'ble Punjab State Commission that issuance of  NOC after delay of  27 days without deposit of Rs.3505/-  proves that there was no amount payable by respondent who suffered loss due to negligent act of the bank. Impugned order does not suffer from any error and the appeal filed by the bank was dismissed.   Accordingly, in our view the Ops  are deficient in service  for non-providing the NOC to the complainant within the stipulated period  and for illegally charging of Rs.500/- more from the complainant. 

8.             In light of facts stated above, we find  that the Ops have miserably failed to prove their case rather the complainant has fully proved his case. We find merit in the present complaint and as such the same is partly allowed. Accordingly, we direct the OPs who are jointly and severally liable to refund an amount of  Rs.500/- to the complainant  and further to pay a consolidated amount of compensation of Rs.10,000/- on account of deficiency in service, mental pain, harassment and litigation. As stated in the written reply, the OPs have already sent no objection certificate to the complainant and a copy of which has been supplied to the learned counsel for the complainant during the pendency of the present complaint on 15.07.2016, we feel that there is no need to order in this regard.

 

9.             This order of ours shall be complied with within 30 days from receipt of copy of the order. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                                         

                        Announced

                        October 25, 2016

 

 

( Sarita Garg)            ( K.C.Sharma)           (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                                                                                                  Member                 Member                     President

 

 

 

BBS/-