BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
                        REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
                                               Complaint  No.414 of 2015
                                               Date of Instt.    21.09.2015
                                               Date of Decision : 06.01.2016

Dalip Kumar son of Prema Ram R/o 13, Rajinder Nagar, Jalandhar City.
                                                                  ..........Complainant                                           Versus
M/s Capital First, Opposite Tehsil Complex, SCO-18, Puda Market, Ladowali Road, Jalandhar City through its branch manager. 

                                                                  .........Opposite party.

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:       Sh.Ashwani Kumar Mehta (President)
                    Ms. Jyotsna Thatai             (Member)
         Sh.Parminder Sharma       (Member)

Present:     Sh.Abhinav Nanda Adv., counsel for complainant.
        Opposite party exparte.
 
Order

             Jyotsna Thatai (Member)
1.         Complainant Dalip Kumar filed the present complaint against M/s Capital First (opposite party) under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act on the allegations of deficiency and negligence in service on the part of OP and for directing the OP to issue No Dues Certificate and Rs.50,000/- for damages.
2.        The case of the complainant in brief is that complainant purchased a motorcycle make Bajaj Discover bearing registration No.PB-08-CN-4671; that the complainant got the said motorcycle financed from opposite party vide loan agreement No.1656429 for Rs.36,000/- and the said amount was to be repaid in 18 monthly installments of Rs.2420/- each w.e.f 31.10.2013. The hypothecation clause was also entered in the RC of the vehicle in the name of OP; that the complainant repaid all the installments of the loan, out of which, 16 were recovered from bank account of the complainant through ECS and two installments were paid by the complainant in cash vide two different receipts issued by the OP; that after liquidation of the loan amount, the complainant approached the OP for issuance of No Dues Certificate enabling him to get the hypothecation clause deleted from the RC of the vehicle. Earlier the OP said that two installments were yet to be paid and when complainant produced cash receipts, the OP demanded a sum of Rs.400/- on account of interest on delayed payment, which the complainant also deposited; that the OP further claimed an amount of Rs.5500/- on account of over due charges from the complainant, which was illegal and unlawful; that the complainant moved application for issuance of No Dues Certificate and settlement of the account, but the same did not evoke any response; that the OP is liable to issue 'No Dues Certificate' to the complainant and as such complainant is entitled for compensation and litigation expenses mentioned in complaint. Hence complaint was filed.
3.        After formal admission of the complaint, notice was issued to the OP and OP was declared to have been duly served but none appeared on behalf of OP and consequently OP was proceeded against exparte vide detailed order dated 4.11.2015.
4.        In exparte evidence, complainant tendered his affidavit Ex.CA and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and closed exparte evidence.
5.        We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the file.
6.        From the perusal of pleading of complainant, it is clear that complainant purchased motorcycle make Bajaj Discover bearing registration No.PB-08-CN-4671 and got financed from OP vide loan agreement No.1656429 for Rs.36,000/-. The hypothecation clause was entered in (Ex.C1) RC for the vehicle with name of OP. Complainant has articulated his grievance that he paid all 18 monthly installments of Rs.2420/- in time (Ex.C2 to Ex.C6). Further according to the complainant, he has also got served a settlement letter to the manager of the bank in this regard but the OP did not send any reply to the above settlement letter by the complainant. The OP has not come present to protest the claim of the complainant. So, it appears that it has nothing to say in the matter. So from unrebutted evidence adduced by the complainant, his case stand proved. It stands proved that the complainant had deposited all the installments and nothing was due but OP has failed to provide 'No Dues Certificate' after receiving the full installments.
7.        In the light of above discussion, the present complaint is allowed with cost in favour of the complainant and against the OP and OP is directed to issue 'No Due Certificate'. The OPs is also burdened with Rs.2000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony suffered by the complainant due to non issuing of 'No Dues Certificate' and complainant is also held entitled to Rs.2000/- as cost of litigation to be recovered from the OP. The OP is directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under the rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated      Parminder Sharma  Jyotsna Thatai    Ashwani Kumar Mehta
06.01.2016          Member                Member                  President