IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 19th day of October, 2013.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C.No.60/2013 (Filed on 10.05.2013)
Between:
Somasekharan Nair,
Kaniparampil House,
Kanjeettukara.P.O.,
Ayroor Village,
Ranny Taluk – 689 616.
(By Adv. Rajan Babu) ….. Complainant
And:
1. M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd.,
Administrative Office: 101-105,
Shiv Chambers, Sector-11,
CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai – 400 614.
2. Branch Manager,
M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd.,
No.161/130/C,
Geetha Commercial Complex,
Near YMCA, M.C. Road,
Kottayam – 686 001.
3. Branch Manager,
M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd.,
Nanthiyathu Plaza, College Junction,
Pathanamthitta – 689 645.
(By Adv. K.N. Sujith counsel for opp.3) …. Opposite parties
O R D E R
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member):
Complainant filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. Brief facts of the case is as follows: The 1st respondent is a financial firm giving loans for vehicles and 2nd and 3rd respondents are its operating Branch Managers at Kottayam and Pathanamthitta. The complainant has availed a loan of Rs.70,000/- from the 1st opposite party for the purchase of a vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-09/C-6958. Complainant defaulted the loan payment and on expiry of the period of the loan agreement 2nd opposite party issued notice to the complainant calling upon to close the said agreement and 2nd opposite party approached the complainant and entered into an amicable settlement. As per the settlement 2nd opposite party advised the complainant to pay Rs.70,000/- as a final settlement. Then the complainant paid the entire amount on 06.12.2011 before the 3rd opposite party and they agreed to issue NOC within 7 days from 06.12.2011.
3. As per the assurance given by the 2nd and 3rd opposite party complainant sold the above said vehicle to one Omanakuttan but opposite parties did not issued the NOC to the complainant. So in the transaction between the complainant and Mr. Omanakuttan Rs.27,500/- is due to the complainant for non issuance of NOC from the respondents. Present possessor of the vehicle is not in a position to effect necessary changes of ownership in the RC Book by lifting the hypothecation. The above said act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant. Hence this complaint for getting the NOC from the opposite parties along with cost and compensation of Rs.25,000/-.
4. In this case, 1st and 2nd opposite parties are exparte. 3rd opposite party entered appearance and filed version with the following contentions.
5. Opposite party admitted the loan transaction. But thereafter he defaulted in the payment. Even now he had not discharged the entire debt towards the company. Change in ownership of a vehicle is within the domain of transport authorities and the complainant can directly approach those authorities if he has any grievance. Till the date complainant had not approached the company for obtaining a document called NOC. Complainant had never entrusted any amount with 3rd opposite party. Until the entire payment towards the company is made no documents allowing to lift the hypothecation noted in the RC Book can be given by the company. The said vehicle is still the asset of the company as the same is hypothecated with the company. With the above contentions, 3rd opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint with cost.
6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
7. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral testimony of PW1, PW2, DW1, Exts.A1 to A3 and B1 and B2. After closure of evidence, both sides were heard.
8. The Point:- Complainant’s case is that he had availed a loan of Rs.70,000/- from the opposite parties for the purchase of a vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-09/C-6958. He defaulted the loan agreement and opposite parties issued notice to the complainant calling upon to close the said agreement. Complainant approached 2nd opposite party and entered into an amicable settlement. As per the settlement, 2nd opposite party advised the complainant to remit Rs.70,000/- as a single and final settlement. Complainant paid the entire amount on 06.12.2011, but so far the opposite parties did not issued NOC to the complainant. Complainant sold the vehicle to another person. Because of the non-issuance of NOC the present purchaser is not able to change the ownership in the RC Book by lifting the hypothecation. The above said acts of the opposite party caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant and hence opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same.
9. In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination along with 3 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, complainant was examined as pW1 and documents produced were marked as Ext.A1 to A3. One witness also examined from the side of the complainant as PW2. Ext.A1 is the temporary receipt for Rs.70,000/- issued in the name of the complainant by the opposite party on 06.12.2011. Ext.A2 is the copy of legal notice issued by the complainant to opposite parties on 17.02.2012. Ext.A3 is the reply notice for Ext.A2 notice.
10. On the other hand, the contention of the 3rd opposite party is that they have sanctioned a vehicle loan to the complainant and he defaulted the instalments. He had not discharged the entire debt towards the company. Moreover he had not approached the company for obtaining NOC. He had not entrusted any amount with 3rd opposite party. Until the entire payment towards the company is made, no documents allowing to lift the hypothecation noted in the R.C. Book can be given by the company. The said vehicle is still the asset of the company as the same is hypothecated with the company. There is no deficiency in service from the part of the opposite parties as alleged by the complainant.
11. In order to prove the case of the opposite party, one employee of the 3rd opposite party is examined as DW1 and documents produced were marked as Ext.B1 and B2. Ext.B1 is the loan cum hypothecation agreement dated 29.04.2009. Ext.B2 is the loan settlement calculation sheet.
12. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the available materials on record and found that parties have no dispute with regard to the loan transaction. The allegation of the complainant is that he had closed the loan account on 06.12.2011 by paying Rs.70,000/- on the basis of a settlement made between the parties in the pressence of one Harikumar, who is a local panchayat member and a co-surety in the loan transaction. Even after closing the loan account. Opposite parties failed to issue the NOC. But according to the opposite parties the complainant has not closed the loan account and hence they are not liable to issue the NOC without closing the loan account. For proving the complainant’s claim he is relying on Ext.A1 receipt. According to the complainant, based on the settlement between the complainant and opposite parties made in the presence of PW2 a co-surety in the loan transaction in question, who is also a local panchayat member, the loan account was settled for an amount of Rs.70,000/- and he paid the said amount on 06.12.2011 to one Arun who is an authorized officer of the opposite parties vide Ext.A1 receipt. The said authorized officer also made endorsement “file closed” on Ext.A1. The above said specific case of the complainant was supported by Harikumar before this Forum by adducing oral evidence as PW2. We do not find any reason to disbelieve the oral testimony of PW2. Moreover, opposite parties failed do discredit the evidensury value of Ext.A1 and the credibility of PW2. What prevented opposite parties to bring the signatory in Ext.A1 before this Forum for challenging the validity of the endorsement “file closed” seen on Ext.A1 receipt of the opposite parties? In the circumstances, we find that the complainant has closed his loan account in connection with the loan transaction in question. Hence the non-issuance of the NOC in question by the opposite parties is an illegal act. Therefore, this complaint is allowable.
13. In the result, this complaint is allowed thereby the opposite parties are directed to issue the NOC of the complainant’s vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL.09-6958 within 20 days from the date of receipt of this order along with compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) and cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) failing which the complainant is allowed to realize an amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) from the opposite parties with 10% interest from today till the realization of the whole amount.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 19th day of October, 2013.
(Sd/-)
K.P. Padmasree,
(Member)
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examine on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : Somasekharan Nair
PW2 : Harikumar. N.S
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Temporary receipt dated 06.12.2011 for Rs.70,000/- issued by the
1st opposite party in the name of the complainant.
A2 : Copy of legal notice dated 17.02.2012 issued by the complainant to
opposite parties.
A3 : Reply notice dated 04.06.2012 for Ext.A2 notice.
Witness examine on the side of the complainant:
DW1 : Anilkumar. R
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
B1 : Loan cum hypothecation agreement dated 29.04.2009.
B2 : Loan settlement calculation sheet.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent
Copy to:- (1) Somasekharan Nair, Kaniparampil House,
Kanjeettukara.P.O., Ayroor Village,
Ranny Taluk – 689 616.
(2) M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd.,
Administrative Office: 101-105, Shiv Chambers, Sector-11,
CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai – 400 614.
(3) Branch Manager, M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd.,
No.161/130/C, Geetha Commercial Complex,
Near YMCA, M.C. Road, Kottayam – 686 001.
(4) Branch Manager, M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd.,
Nanthiyathu Plaza, College Junction,
Pathanamthitta – 689 645.
(5) The Stock File.
