Date of Filing: 14.05.2008<br /> Date of Order:24.09.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2008<br /> PRESENT<br /> Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 1131 OF 2008<br /> Jaya B. Appachu<br /> S/o. Late B.C. Appachu<br /> R/at No. 624, 2nd Main Road<br /> Indiranagar 1st Stage<br /> Bangalore 560 038 Complainant<br /> V/S<br /> <br /> 1. M/s. Maruti Countrywide<br /> No. 4 Prime Business Centre<br /> Sri Krishna Temple Road<br /> Indiranagar, Bangalore 560 038<br /> Represented by its Manager<br /> Customer Care Centre<br /> <br /> 2. M/s. G.E. Money Financial Services Ltd.<br /> Registered Office at Unit No. 401-402<br /> 4th Floor Aggarwal Millennium Tower<br /> E 1-2-3 Netaji Subhash Place<br /> Pitampura, Delhi 110 034<br /> Represented by its Managing Director Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act to direct the opposite party to issue No Objection Certificate to the complainant in respect of his motor car bearing No. KA 03 MB 2538 by foreclosing the loan account No. MBAM 00001948 and for payment of compensation of Rs. 42,500/- for deficiency of service. <br /> 2. Notice was issued to opposite parties. Opposite parties appeared through their counsel HPB. Defence version filed stating that the complainant has issued 60 post dated cheques and out of them 4 cheques were dis-honoured. However, the complainant cleared the loan amount and loan account stands closed. <br /> 3. The complainant has filed his affidavit evidence.<br /> 4. Since there was no dispute in respect of clearing the loan account opposite parties have admitted clearly that the complainant has cleared the loan and loan account stands closed. Therefore, the forum directed the opposite parties to give NOC immediately to the complainant. The learned advocate for the opposite parties submitted that the complainant has to give formal request letter to the opposite party for getting NOC. As per that submission the complainant had also given a letter dated 14.08.2008. The said letter is as follows:<br /> “ BY SPEED POST<br /> Bangalore<br /> 14.08.2008<br /> From,<br /> Jaya B. Appachu<br /> 624, 2nd Main, Indiranagar 1st Stage<br /> Bangalore 560038<br /> <br /> To:<br /> M/s. G.E. Money Financial Services Lt.d<br /> Unit No. 401-402, 4th Floor Aggarwal Millennium Tower<br /> E 1-2-3 Netaji Subhash Place<br /> Pitampura, Delhi 110 034<br /> <br /> Dear Sir,<br /> Sub: Issue of NOC in respect of loan A/c No. MBAM 00001948<br /> Ref:1. My letters dated 14.09.07, 19.09.07, 26.09.07, 22.03.08, legal notice 27.11.07, legal notice dated 26.12.07, legal notice dated 06.03.08, 27.03.08<br /> 2. My complaint No. 1131/2008 before the II Addl. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bangalore Urban District Hg. on 14.08.08<br /> With reference to the subject referred to above, I write to state as follows:<br /> My complaint referred to above came up for hearing today (14.08.08) before the Consumer Forum. Your counsel represented before the court that there is no due from me to the company and in view of the same the company is ready to issue the NOC. However, he submitted that I have to write a letter requesting for issue of NOC Without prejudice to my claim in the above said complaint, I request you to issue the NOC to me without further delay. This letter is being issued at the request of your counsel.<br /> Yours truly,<br /> (JAYA B. APPACHU)”<br /> 3. In spite of this letter the opposite parties failed to issue NOC on the ground that the complainant has stated in the letter that NOC to be issued without prejudice to his claim. Therefore, the efforts made by the forum for amicable settlement of the matter failed and arguments of both the learned counsels heard and both the advocates of the parties submitted that order may be passed. I have gone through the complaint, documents and number of correspondence and exchange of letters made by the complainant. As regards the loan transaction is concerned there is no dispute. It is also not in dispute that complainant has cleared the loan and loan account has been closed. The only thing now requires to be done is the opposite parties have to issue NOC to the complainant. It is admitted case of the parties that the entire loan amount was paid including the cheque return charges of Rs. 3,000/- on 29.03.2008. On negotiation and settlement the cheque return charges were fixed at Rs. 3,000/- instead of Rs. 4,000/- and accordingly, complainant had given D.D. for Rs. 3,000/- on 29.03.2008. On payment of this amount entire loan account was cleared and there was no due as on 29.03.2008. All these facts are admitted. Now, the point for consideration is:<br /> “Whether the opposite parties should have given NOC to the complainant on 29.03.2008 as soon as the loan was cleared by the complainant?”<br /> 4. This is the age of science and technology. Every office and banks are using computer technology. Computerization of all the banks has been done. The opposite parties should not have made any delay in issue of NOC to complainant once the loan was cleared. The loan was cleared on 29.03.2008. The opposite parties have not issued NOC to the complainant even though he has demanded the same and requested several times. It is unfortunate that the complainant made several oral and written demands to issue NOC and registered letter of demand was also sent. In spite of all these things the opposite parties have not acted promptly and request of the complainant have not been complied with. This is definitely not good on the part of the opposite parties. This attitude of the opposite parties is a clear case of deficiency in service. Consumer Protection Act is a social and benevolent legislation. It intends to provide and protect the better interests of the consumers. The complainant who was the customer of the opposite parties had been forced to approach the forum for getting a very small relief. This is really unfortunate thing. The opposite parties being a service provider institution should not give to such scope. The opposite parties should have seen that NOC was issued immediately on closer of the car loan account. This is a fit case to quote the famous quotation of Father of Nation, Mahatma Gandhi “A Consumer is the most important visitor in our premises. He is not dependent on us. We are dependent on him. He is not an interruption in our work. He is the purpose of it. He is not an outside on our business. He is a part of it. We are not doing him a favour by serving him. He is doing us a favour by giving us an opportunity to do so.” The complainant has claimed Rs. 42,500/- as compensation for withholding the NOC under various heads. Taking into consideration of the delay in issue of NOC to the complainant we feel the ends of justice will be met in awarding Rs. 7,000/- as global compensation along with direction to the opposite parties to issue NOC forthwith to the complainant. In the result I proceed to pass the following:<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 5. The complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to issue NOC to the complainant forthwith in respect of car loan A/c No. MBAM 00001948. <br /> 6. The opposite parties are directed to pay compensation of Rs. 7,000/- to the complainant.<br /> 7. The complainant is entitled for Rs. 3,000/- towards costs of the present proceedings from the opposite parties.<br /> 8. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs as per statutory requirements. <br /> 9. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2008. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> I concur the above findings. <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER <br />