BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH ======== Consumer Complaint No | : | 439 of 2010 | Date of Institution | : | 20.07.2010 | Date of Decision | : | 18.04.2011 |
Ms.Sangeeta Khurana w/o Sanjeev Khurana r/o H.No.1073, Sector 43-B, Chandigarh ….…Complainant V E R S U S 1. M/s City Corp Maruti Finance Ltd., TSE-E Services, A-25, 2nd Floor, Mathura Road, Mohan Cooperative Indl. Estate, New Delhi. 2. Aggarwal Rajeev and Associates, SCO 124-25, 2nd Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh. ..…Opposite Parties CORAM: SH.P.D.GOEL, PRESIDENT SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA MEMBER Argued by:Sh. Rajesh Verma , Adv. for complainant. Sh.K.S.Prasad, Adv. for OP-1 OP-2 exparte. --- PER P.D.GOEL, PRESIDENT The complainant namely Ms.Sangeeta Khurana has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (as amended upto date) “hereinafter referred to as the Act”. In short, the facts of the case are that the complainant took loan @ EMI of Rs.7143/- per month from OPs. The loan amount was fully paid on 26.03.2002 and thereafter the certificate dated 13.04.2002 was issued by OP. It is the case of the complainant that as per the guidelines of the Citi Bank Car Loans, the NOC from the OPs was required to be sent to her within 15 days to remove the hypothecation from the RC of the vehicle. It is the grouse of the complainant that the loan amount has been fully paid but OPs failed to send the required NOC. She made number of requests to OPs to issue the NOC but all in vain. Hence, this complaint. 2. OP-1 filed the reply. The various preliminary objections were raised. On merits, the averments contained in the complaint were denied. However, it is admitted that the loan @ EMI of Rs.7143/- per month was released. It is admitted that the loan was closed on 26.02.2002 and certificate dated 13.04.2002 was also issued. It is further replied that NOC was also issued to the complainant regarding the closure of the loan as per the guidelines. It is denied that replying OP had failed to send the NOC. 3. OP-2 was duly served for 16.08.2010 but none appeared, hence proceeded exparte. 4. Parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and have also perused the record. 6. The perusal of the order sheet dated 04.03.2011 makes it clear that the counsel for the OP-1 has placed on the record the NOC dated 3.3.2011 in respect of vehicle No.CH-03-D-8312 along with the Form No.35 for handing over the same to the complainant. 7. OP-1 has raised the plea that the NOC was issued to the complainant regarding the closure of the loan but to prove the said factum, OP has not placed on record any documentary evidence that the said NOC was ever sent or received by the complainant. This gives impression to this Forum that the OP-1 has filed NOC dated 3.3.2011 referred to above during the pendency of the complaint as the complaint has been filed on 20.07.2010. Thus, the complainant is held entitled for compensation and litigation costs which are assessed at Rs.3000/- to be paid by the OPs to the complainant. Order accordingly. The complainant is directed to collect the NOC dated 3.3.2011 in respect of vehicle No.CH-03-D-8312 alongwith the Form No.35 produced in the Forum on 04.03.2011 against proper receipt. 8. This order be complied with by the OPs within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy. The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned. | Sd/- | | Sd/- | Sd/- | 18.04.2011 | [Dr. (Mrs) Madanjit Kaur Sahota] | | [Rajinder Singh Gill] | (P.D.Goel) | Cm | Member | | Member | President |
| | MR. RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. P. D. Goel, PRESIDENT | DR. MRS MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER | | 
