BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Dula Ram Khimta S/o Sh.Dhani Ram Khimta r/o Village Baghal, P.O. Kiarvi, Tehsil Kotkhai, District Shimla, H.P.

…..Complainant

                                      V E R S U S

1]      M/s Kotak Mahindra Primus Limited, having its Registered Office at 36-38-A, Nariman Bhawan, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021, through its Managing Director. (Deleted vide order dated 8.12.2010).

2]      M/s Kotak Mahindra Primus Limited, having its registered office at 2^nd floor, SCO No.141-142, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh, UT – 160009 through its Incharge/Manager. (Deleted vide order dated 8.12.2010).

3]      M/s Kotak Mahindra Primus Limited, SCO No.153-155, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

4]      M/s Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, SCO No.153-155, Sector  9-C, Chandigarh, through its Manager/Incharge.

          ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:     SH.P.D.GOEL                                               PRESIDENT

                   SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL                        MEMBER

                DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA,     MEMBER

Argued by:    Sh.Navin Kapur, Counsel for complainant.

                        Ms.Jaimini Tiwari, proxy Counsel for

                        Sh.Rajneesh Malhotra, Counsel for OP No.3.

                        Sh.V.K.Gupta, Counsel for OP No.4.

PER P.D. GOEL, PRESIDENT

1.                Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant got financed a Mahindra Bolero Camper vehicle bearing registration No.HP-51-B-0135 from OPs in the month of February, 2004. The complainant took loan of Rs.3.00 lacs from OPs vide loan agreement No.CV-663651.

                   It has been further stated that certain loan documents, having blank columns were obtained from the complainant besides taking 38 bank cheques of Rs.10,000/- each drawn on H.P.State Cooperative Bank Limited, Sanjauli, Shimla. The complainant averred that he has paid the entire loan amount with upto date interest and other charges in installments.  The complainant alleged that despite full payment of the loan amount, the OPs did not issue NOC in his favour. As a  result of that the complainant got a legal notice dated 3.6.2008 served upon the OPs but to no avail. On the contrary, the OP No.4 issued a legal notice dated 25.2.2010 to him, claiming therein, that an amount of Rs.35,323/- is still outstanding towards the complainant. The complainant gave reply to legal notice but to no effect. Hence, this complaint.

2.                OP No.3 filed its reply, wherein, the preliminary objections vis-vis the complainant is not a consumer and jurisdiction were raised. On merits, it has been denied that the complainant had taken loan from OP No.3 and pleaded that he might have taken loan from other company.  The OP No.3 further pleaded that it had never issued any legal notice to the complainant whereas the same was issued by M/s Kotak Mohindra Bank which is not impleaded as party. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service on its part and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made

3.                OP No.4 filed the reply, wherein, the preliminary objection vis-vis maintainability and jurisdiction were raised. On merits, it has been pleaded that the complainant approached the replying OP for finance of Mahindra Balero and in turn the loan of Rs.3 lacs was sanctioned to the complainant on 17.3.2004 vide agreement bearing No.663651 for the commercial vehicle, payable in 35 equal installments with EMI of Rs.10,000/-. It has been denied that the complainant had made the full and final payment of the loan amount, as two cheques bearing No.112835 and 383484 for a sum of Rs.10,000/- each were bounced. It has been further pleaded that as per the statement of account, an amount of Rs.33,726/- is due towards the complainant upto 27.9.2007. It has been denied that the complainant approached OP No.4 for issuance of the NOC/No Due Certificate. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service on its part and prayer for dismissal of the complaint with heavy costs has been made

4.                Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant, proxy Counsel for OP No.3 and learned Counsel for OP No.4 and have also perused the record.

6.                The learned Counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant took the loan of Rs.3 lacs from the OPs. The complainant has paid the entire loan amount with upto date interest and other charges in installments. It was lastly argued that despite full payment of the loan amount, the OPs did not issue NOC in his favour, despite of legal notice.

7.                The learned Counsel for OP No.3 submitted that the complainant had not taken loan from it. It was lastly submitted that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on its part.

8.                The learned Counsel for OP No.4 raised the arguments that OP No.4 sanctioned the loan of Rs.3.00 lacs to the complainant on 17.3.2004, payable in 35 equal installments with EMI of Rs.10,000/-. It was contended that the complainant had not made the full and final payment of the loan amount as the cheque of Rs.10,000/- each were bounced. That the amount of Rs.33,726/- is due towards the complainant upto 27.9.2007. It was lastly argued that the complainant had not approached OP No.4 for issuance of the NOC/No Due Certificate.

9.                The grouse of the complainant can be put in narrow compass as he wants direction to the OPs for the issuance of NOC/No Due Certificate in his favour. The learned Counsel for OP No.4 on 6.3.2012 had made a statement that OP No.4 is ready to issue the NOC of vehicle No.HP-51-B-0135 to the complainant. In view of this, we do not want to go into the further details of the matter and direct OP No.4 to issue the NOC of vehicle No.HP-51-B-0135 to the complainant.

10.              As is clear from the zimini order dated 6.3.2012, the learned Counsel for the complainant stated that since the NOC is being issued after the delay of 8 years, therefore, the complainant is entitled for compensation and litigation costs. The said submission of the learned Counsel for the complainant was opposed by the learned Counsel for OP No.4 on the ground that the complainant has not approached OP No.4 with the request to issue NOC. The submission of the learned Counsel for OP No.4 cannot be accepted nor it stand to reason as the present complaint has been filed with the prayer that direction be issued to the OPs to issue the NOC of vehicle No.HP-51-B-0135. Thus, the submission raised by the learned Counsel for OP No.4 is rejected being devoid of any merits.

11.              Admittedly, the learned Counsel for OP No.4 agreed to issue the NOC in favour of the complainant on 6.3.2012 vide separate statement of even date recorded separately.  The present complaint has been filed in this Forum on 16.8.2010. Thus, it is clear that offer to issue the NOC from the side of OP No.4 came after about 1 ½ years of filing of the complaint, therefore, the complainant is entitled for compensation and litigation costs, which are assessed at Rs.35,000/- & Rs.15,000/- respectively to be paid by OP No.4 to the complainant.

12.              No deficiency is found against OP No.3, so, the complaint against it stands dismissed.

13.              As a result of the above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed. OP No.4 is directed to issue the NOC of vehicle No.HP-51-B-0135 and to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant on account of compensation for mental agony and harassment and litigation costs. This order be complied with by OP No.4 within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy.

14.              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.