2. M/s  Citi Financial Consumer Finance India Limited,

   Rep. by its Assistant Manager,

   Himayat Nagar, Near TTD,

   Liberty Main Road, 3-6-385,

   Hyderabad.

3.M/s Citi Financial Consumer Finance India Limited,

   (Erstwhile known as Associates India Financial Services Limited)

  Regd. Office at 3, LSC Pushp Vihar,

  New Delhi-110 062.                                         … Opposite parties

      This complaint coming up before us for hearing on 27-07-11 in the presence of Smt V. Usha Kiran Reddy, advocate for complainant and of                             Sri N. Sridhar, advocate for 1^st opposite party and opposite parties                 2 and 3 are remained absent and set exparte, upon perusing the material on record and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum made the following: 

O R D E R

Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao,  President:-

        The complainants filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking clearance certificate to the 1^st complainant vide loan account No.4758, Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation for not selling the vehicle, Rs.15,000/- towards mental agony and for costs.

2.  In brief the averments of the complaint are these:

        The complainants are husband and wife.   The 1^st complainant on 13-11-04 obtained car loan from the 1^st opposite party vide account No.4758 agreeing to repay the said loan amount in monthly installments.  The 1^st complainant discharged the said loan on                      13-10-08.   The complainants obtained another loan of RS.6,92,000/- vide account No.11873722.   Inspite of repeated demands the 1^st opposite party did not issue clearance certificate to the complainant in respect of car loan.   The complainants are ready and willing to pay the overdue amount vide account bearing No.11873722.   But the 1^st opposite party is not receiving the payment for non-issuance of clearance certificate in respect of car loan.  The 1^st complainant is unable to get his name transferred before the concerned authorities for want of clearance certificate and as such is unable to sell or transfer the vehicle to 3^rd parties.    The 3^rd opposite party on 09-01-10 issued notice demanding the complainants to pay installments in respect of the loan vide account No.11873722.   The complainants gave a suitable reply.   Not issuing clearance certificate by the 1^st opposite party amounted to deficiency of service.   The complainants suffered a lot mentally and financially to a tune of Rs.3,00,000/- on account of not selling the vehicle.   The complaint therefore be allowed.

3.      The opposite parties 2 and 3 remained exparte.

4.   The contention of the 1^st opposite party in nutshell is hereunder:

        The 1^st complainant discharged car loan by 13-10-08 after so many repeated demands.   Redemption of car loan ipsofacto makes him acquire fundamental right to get back the discharged mortgaged vehicle and clearance certificate in no time provided the 1^st complainant was sincere.   The 1^st complainant never approached the office of the 1^st opposite party along with relevant materials for affixing entries therein to the effect that the said car loan was cancelled in entirety.   Without issuing any notice the complainants rushed to this Forum and it amounted to violation of principles of natural justice.   The complainants became over due by 07-01-10 as they did not pay 14 monthly installments in respect of loan account No.11873722.    The compensation claimed by the complainant is unjust and unwarranted.   If really the 1^st complainant intended to dispose off his car he could have approached the office and sought clearance certificate.  The complaint therefore be dismissed as frivolous. 

5.   Exs.A-1 to A-10 on behalf of the complainant were marked.   No documents were marked on behalf of the opposite parties.

6.   Now the points for consideration in this complaint are:

1. Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency of service?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation and if so to what amount?
3.  To what relief?

7. Undisputed facts in this case are these:

1.   The complainants borrowed Rs.6,92,000/- under        home         equity loan account bearing No.11873722 and   became a defaulter in payment of installments.

2.   The complainants discharged the car loan on 13-10-08        (Exs.A-1 to A-6).

 3.  Exchange of notices between the complainant and the        opposite parties (Exs.A-7 to A-10).

8.  POINTS 1&2:-    The contention of the 1^st opposite party is that the 1^st complainant never approached for clearance certificate.    The contention of the complainants is that they orally approached.   The complainants sent reply to the opposite parties demanding clearance certificate after discharging car loan on receipt of Ex.A-7 notice from the 3^rd opposite party.   Till then the 1^st complainant did not issue any notice to any of the opposite parties demanding clearance certificate.   No prudent person will keep quite if any opponent fails to give discharge certificate inspite of repeated oral demands.   Not giving any notice in writing to the opposite parties seeking clearance certificate corroborated the contention of the 1^st opposite party about the sincerity of the complainant in obtaining it.   After Ex.A-7 notice from the 3^rd opposite party only the 1^st complainant along with his wife approached this Forum and it raised attitude of confrontation between the complainants and the opposite parties.

9.     Undoubtedly, non-issuance of clearance certificate by the opposite parties amounted to deficiency of service as rightly contended by the complainants.    The contention of the 1^st complainant about his inability to sell the car for want of clearance certificate is having considerable force.   If the 1^st complainant had really intended to sell his vehicle he could not have kept quite such a long time at least even to approach this Forum.    Compensation to be awarded has to be just and reasonable.  

10.   The 1^st opposite party in its version expressed willingness to issue clearance certificate and the 1^st complainant has to fulfill certain formalities.   The complainants also did not evince any interest to take clearance certificate inspite of such contention from the 1^st opposite party.   It can therefore be said that the complainant is also guilty of latches and not diligent in minimizing the damages.   Under those circumstances, awarding a sum of Rs.10,000/- for not issuing clearance certificate in our considered opinion will meet ends of justice.    In view of the aforementioned discussion, these points are answered accordingly in favour of the complainants.

11.   POINT No.3:-   In view of above findings in the result the complaint is allowed partly as indicated below:

1. The opposite parties are directed to issue clearance certificate to the 1^st complainant in respect of the vehicle bearing No. AP 07 3615.
2. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation.
3. The opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards costs.  
4. The above order shall be complied within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

Typed to my dictation by Junior Stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 29th day of              July, 2011.

            MEMBER                                                                                 PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite parties :    NIL

                                                                                                PRESIDENT