BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PRESENT SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER C.C. No. 140/2009 Filed on 15.06.2009 Dated : 15.02.2010 Complainant: P. Prasad B. Bengam, Thrithara Nivas, Maruthattoor, Chaikkottukonam P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By adv. B. Vasudevan Nair) Opposite party: M/s Tata Motors Limited, (Tata Motor Finance), DGP House, 4th Floor, Old Prabhadevi Road, Mumbai.
This O.P having been heard on 18.01.2010, the Forum on 15.02.2010 delivered the following: ORDER SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER
Complainant entered into a loan cum hypothecation agreement with the opposite party bearing No. 2083 4582 dated 30.12.2003 hypothecating the vehicle bearing Reg. No. KL-01 AC 4716 and Chassis No. 601144 MW2 PA 8022 and engine No. 475 IDT 12 MW2 PA 6453. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement the complainant repaid the entire loan amount. He bonafidely believed that after closing the loan, the registration certificate and other papers concerned will be handed over to him. But after the repayment of the entire loan amount the complainant was surprised to receive a notice from M/s Law Nexus and Associates dated 05.02.2008 alleging that the complainant has committed default in making payment of the loan amount as agreed. As the petitioner did not make any default, he directly went to the office of the opposite party at Kollam and enquired about the alleged default and found that the 10th instalment amounting to Rs. 10,500/- which became due on 25.09.2004 and paid by way of demand draft No. 253335 dated 01.12.2004 was not credited in the loan account. The said mistake was brought to the notice of the Manager of the said office and he agreed to clear the same. But the said promise was not fulfilled by the said Manager of the opposite party. As a result, the complainant was served with another notice issued by Adv. K. Ravikumar dated 10.04.2008 calculating interest and penal interest etc. for the said 10th instalment assuming that the complainant has not paid the 10th instalment. On receipt of the said notice the petitioner again approached the Manager of the opposite party at Thiruvananthapuram and convinced him that he has paid the 10th instalment. The last instalment of the said loan was paid by the complainant on 30.04.2008 and the petitioner has paid a total amount of Rs. 5,05,160/- by way of 48 instalments. As per the records of the opposite party, the total amount payable is only Rs. 5,04,160/- and thus the petitioner has paid Rs. 1,000/- extra. The complainant pleads that he has made the entire payment and hence the opposite party is legally bound to issue the non-liability certificate to the complainant. As the opposite party failed to issue the same, the complainant issued a legal notice demanding him to issue the NLC on 18.08.2008 but till date the same was not issued to the complainant. Hence this complaint. The opposite party in this case Tata Motors Limited accepted the notice issued from this Forum, but they did not appear before this Forum to contest the case. Hence the opposite party remains exparte. Complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of oral evidence and produced 6 documents. The documents produced by the complainant were marked as Exts. P1 to P6. The affidavit filed by the complainant stands unchallenged. Points to be ascertained: Whether there is deficiency in service from the side of opposite party? Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs and costs?
Points (i) & (ii):- The case of the complainant is that he has paid the entire loan amount to the opposite party. But the opposite party did not issue non-liability certificate to the complainant. The opposite party illegally demanded further payment even though the complainant has paid the entire loan amount and also the complainant convinced the opposite party that he had paid the 10th instalment by way of D.D dated 01.12.2004. Hence the act of the opposite party in not issuing the NLC is unfair trade practice and deficiency in their service. To prove the contentions of the complainant he has filed proof affidavit and produced 6 documents. The affidavit filed by the complainant stands unchallenged and uncontroverted. The document marked as Ext. P1 is the copy of lawyer's notice issued by the opposite party to the complainant dated 05.02.2008 demanding Rs. 33,330/- as dues upto 04.02.2008. Ext. P2 is the copy of D.D dated 01.12.2004 for an amount of Rs. 10,500/- and copy of covering letter regarding the D.D. Ext. P3 is the notice dated 10.04.2008 issued by the opposite party to the complainant demanding the balance amount of Rs. 26,486/-. Ext. P4 is the copy of lawyer's notice dated 18.08.2008 issued by the complainant to the opposite party demanding non-liability certificate. Ext. P5 is the postal receipt of the notice and Ext. P6 is the signed acknowledgement card by the opposite party. But the opposite party neither turned up to issue the Non-liability Certificate to the complainant nor responded to the notice. In this case the opposite party neither turned up to contest the case nor settled the case. The complainant in this case established his case through pleadings and documents. On the basis of the available records we find that the complainant in this case is entitled to get the non-liability certificate since he has paid the entire loan amount. The act of the opposite party in not issuing the non-liability certificate amounts to unfair trade practice and their service deficiency. The complainant has suffered mental agony due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and hence the complainant is entitled to get compensation from the opposite party. Hence the complaint is allowed. In the result, the opposite party is directed to issue Non-liability Certificate to the complainant with regard to the loan cum hypothecation agreement dated 30.12.2003 bearing No. 20834582. The opposite party shall pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the unfair trade practice adopted by the opposite party and defective service rendered to the complainant and shall pay Rs. 1,500/- as costs. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 15th day of February 2010.
BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
jb
C.C. No. 140/2009 APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS : PW1 - P. Prasad B. Bengam II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS : P1 - Advocate notice dated 05.02.2008 P2 - Photocopy of D.D dated 01.12.2004 for an amount of Rs. 10,500/-. P3 - Advocate notice dated 10.04.2008 issued by the opposite party P4 - Photocopy of advocate notice dated 18.08.2008 P5 - Postal receipt of the notice P6 - Signed acknowledgement card by the opposite party.
III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS : NIL IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS : NIL
PRESIDENT
| 
