IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM

Dated this the 28^th day of April 2023

Present: Sri.Manulal.V.S, President

                                                                                          Smt.Bindhu.R, Member

           Sri.K.M.Anto, Member

CC No. 155/2022 (Filed on 23.07.2022)

Complainants                            : 1.     P.A.Navas, S/o Abdul Azeez

                                                          Puthuparambil House

                                                          Thrikkodithanam Village

                                                          Changanassery , Kottayam-686 105

                                                  2.     Shahana Jinna, W/o Jinna

                                                          Thaimadam, Fathimapuram P.O

                                                          Changanassery P.O-686102

                                                  3.     Jinna T.H, Thaimadam

                                                          Fathimapuram P.O

                                                          Changanacherry -686102

                                                          (By Adv.Zakhier Huzzain)

                                                         Vs

Opposite party                          :         M/s L& T Finance Ltd

                                                          32/1946 F, 2^nd Floor, Ventura

                                                          Byepass Road, Anjumana

                                                          Edappally P.O, Kochi-682024

                                                          Rep. by its Director        

O R D E R

Smt.Bindhu.R, Member

The Complaint is filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.

The case of the complainants is that he has purchased a TATA ACE HT CLB BSII vehicle bearing reg.no.KL-33B-2141 as per agreement no.KGB 121036R1000236413 for an amount of Rs.2,40,000/- on 30/03/2010 by availing loan from the opposite party for Rs.2,40,000/-on 30/03/2010. Due to financial stringency the 1^st complainant had to sell the said vehicle to the 2^nd and 3^rd complainants upon an undertaking that the re payment would be done by the 2^nd and 3^rd complainants and they had promptly paid the due amount. The complainants paid all the whole amount and the last payment was on 09/04/2014. Even after the full repayment, the opposite party is not ready for issuing NOC to the complainant. The 1^st complainant issued a legal notice to the opposite party and in reply to this the opposite party had claimed Rs.53,573/- towards the balance payment. But the complainant had already paid Rs.3,06,440/- for the loan amount of Rs.2,40,000/-. The claim of the opposite party that the complainant has to pay dues is not correct and only a false allegation. The non issuance of the NOC to the complainant is a deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Hence the complaint is filed for a direction to the opposite party to issue NOC to the complainant and for a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony.

In spite of repeated notices and notice through paper publication, the opposite party did not appear before the Commission or filed version and hence the opposite party was set exparte.

The complainants have filed evidence affidavit along with Exhibit A1 to A5.

On the basis of pleadings and evidence on record, we frame the issues as whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and if so what are the reliefs?

Answering the above issues, we have to go through the evidence put forth by the complainants. The complainants’ have stated that they had paid the entire loan amount including the payable interest. But the opposite party is wilfully evading from the responsibility to issue NOC to the 1^st complainant which is a deficiency of service.

The Exhibit A1 series, A2 and A3 are the payment details of the loan made by the complainants. On a detailed evaluation of these documents, we understand that the complainants have paid more amount than the loan amount with the last payment date as 09.04.2014. The opposite party in its reply notice to the complainant has claimed that the 1^st complainant had defaulted the repayment. But we don’t have any evidence before us in this regard. From the available evidence, we can very well infer that the complainants have paid more than the entire loan amount upto a sum of Rs.3,06,440/-. We don’t see any circumstance to disbelieve this contention and hence we answer both the issues in favour of the complainant.  Thus we allow the complaint vide the following order.

1. The opposite party is directed to issue the NOC to the 1^st complainant with respect to the vehicle TATA ACE HT CLB BSII bearing registration No KL-33B-2141.
2. The opposite party shall pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation to the complainant along with Rs.3,000/- as litigation cost.

    Order shall be complied within 30 days of receipt of this order failing which the award amount shall carry 9 % interest from the date of the order.

Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 20^th day of April, 2023.

Smt.Bindhu.R, Member         sd/-

Sri.Manulal.V.S, President     sd/-      

Sri. K.M. Anto, Member        sd/-

Appendix

Exhibits marked from the side of complainants.

A1 series -   Original receipts of L & T Finance

A2-    Copy of statement of account for the period of 01.01.2013 to 31.01.2014.

A3-    Copy of statement of account for the period of 01.01.2014 to 31.12.2014.

A4-    Copy of legal notice dated 13.03.2020.

A5-    Copy of letter from L & T Finance Ltd dated 04.08.2020.

Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party

Nil

By order

     Sd/-

 Assistant Registrar