1. The brief fact of the case of complainant is that on 05.12.2016 as per motivation of O.P. 2, she purchased one Auto for earning her livelihood by means of employments and paid Rs. 51,519/- towards margin money, processing chares, registration and other charges and availed loan of Rs. 1,75,000/- on 36 nos. of installments, whereas the O.P. No.1 issued receipt of less of Rs. 231/- i.e. Rs. 51,288/- vide no. JYP-AD-SS-BR-16-17-1048 dated 05.12.2016.  It is alleged that though the vehicle was delivered on 30.12.2016 but no documents were provided to her and on April, 2017 she received the documents.  It is also alleged that she has cleared all the installments dues, but the O.P. 3 demanded further Rs. 17,900/- to issue NOC and from the state of account she found that the installment was fixed for Rs. 6,300/- whereas the O.P. No. 3 received Rs. 6,700/- as per the money receipt and have taken Rs. 400/- excess on each installments.  Thus showing deficiency in service she prayed for refund of Rs. 400/- on each installments, to issue NOC, Rs. 5,00,000/-, Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation, costs of litigation and conveyance from the O.Ps.

2. O.P. No.1 filed their counter admitting the sale of alleged vehicle, but denied the allegations of complainant contending that they have no knowledge about of taking excess of amount of Rs. 231/- and they have also handed over the necessary documents to the complainant at the time of delivery of vehicle and also contended that since the subject matter is related to finance of vehicle, as such they have no role to play and with other contentions, they prayed to dismiss the case.
    
3. O.P. No. 2 did not appear in this case, nor also participated in the hearing, whereas, being the employee of O.P. No.3, he has knowledge about the dispute of the case, hence we lost every opportunities to hear from him.
    
4. O.P. No.3 filed their counter admitting the finance provided to the complainant against the alleged vehicle and also admitted that the O.P. No.2 is their employee.  But have contended that this Commission has lacks jurisdiction to try the case as the subject matter is related to finance and there is provision of adjudication of the case under Arbitration and that the complainant has not produced any document that the alleged vehicle is used only for earning livelihood by means of self employment. Further contended that the complainant availed loan for Rs. 1,75,000/- which was to be repaid for Rs. 2,52,806/- on 40 periodical installments starting from 29.12.2016 till 20.03.2020 and complainant was defaulter of loan and is to pay Rs. 26,650/- for which they have not issued the NOC and with other contentions, they prayed to dismiss the case.
    
5. Complainant has filed certain documents in support of her case like :
   1. Copy of hand written statement given by the O.P. No.2 being signed by him.
   2. Copy of bank receipt vide no. JYP-AD-SS-BR-16-17-1048
   3. 21 nos. of money receipts showing payment of Rs. 6,700/-
   4. Copy of statement of account showing payment of Rs. 6,300/-
   5. Copy of R.C. Paper
   6. Copy of hand written document issued by O.P. No.2 showing margin money of Rs. 51,519/-
   7. Copy of money receipt issued by O.P. No. 1 towards margin money showing receipt of Rs. 51,288/-

For better perusal and clarification the documents are marked as Ext. C(a), C(b), C(c), C(d), C(e), C(f) and C(g).

Whereas the O.P. No.3 has filed the documents i.e. statement of account of loan financed by them and marked as Ext. OP3 (1). 

But the rest O.Ps did not choose to file any single documents in support of their case.  

Heard from the complainant, A/Rs for the respective O.Ps.

6. It is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased the alleged Auto from O.P. No.1 on finance from O.P. No. 3 and the O.P. No. 2 is the employee of O.P. No.3. and on 05.12.2016 she has availed the loan of Rs. 1,75,000/- for 35 instalments and the total repayable amount comes to Rs. 2,52,806/-.  The allegations of complainant is that after availed the finance, the O.Ps did not hand over the M.V. documents of the alleged vehicle for about four months and the O.P. No. 2 received the margin money of Rs. 51,519/- but the O.P. No. 1 has issued money receipt of Rs. 51,288/- less amounting of Rs. 231/-.  Further allegations is that though the installment due of Rs. 6,700/- was accepted at the counter of O.P. No.3, but the statement of account shows the installment dues is of Rs. 6,300/- less amounting of Rs. 400/- on each installment.  Whereas the O.P. No.3 stated that the installment was fixed for Rs. 6,300/- but not Rs. 6,700/- and accordingly, they have issued the statement of account.Further allegation is that the O.Ps have not issued the NOC against the alleged vehicle through she has already cleared all the installment dues, whereas the O.P. No. 3 has stated that since the complainant is to pay further amount of Rs. 26,650/-, as such they have not issued the NOC against the alleged vehicle.Parties have submitted their views as per complaint petition and counter versions.

7. Now the question arose to decide is that
   1. Whether the O.P. No. 2 has taken excess amount on margin money and deposited less with the O.P. No.1 ?
   2. Whether the O.P. No. 3 has received excess amount of Rs. 400/- on each installments ?
   3. Whether the complainant has further dues of Rs. 26,650/- to the O.P. No.3 ?
   4. Whether non issue of NOC against the alleged vehicle is justified ?

8. Coming to first point we have gone through the documents filed by complainant i.e.  Ext. C(a) and Ext. C(b) and found that the Ext. C(a) was issued by O.P. No. 2 which clearly shows that the margin money was of Rs. 51,519/- whereas the Ext. C(b) issued by the O.P. No.1 clearly shows that the margin money was of Rs. 51,288/-.  Though the O.P. No. 2 is having knowledge about the present dispute, but did not choose to challenge allegations of complainant, so also the O.P. No. 3 is totally silent over the same.  Since no contradiction is made out by the O.P. No. 2 & 3, we are inclined to accept the version of complainant and come to the conclusion that the O.P. No. 2 has collected an amount of Rs. 51,519/- from the complainant but deposited Rs. 51,288/- by keeping an amount of Rs. 231/- with him, which clearly shows that the O.P. No. 2 has fraudulently grabbed Rs. 231/- from the complainant which attracts the deficiency in service on the part of O.P. No. 2. In this connection we have also fortified with the verdicts of Hon’ble National Commission in the case between Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner, Rajasthan Vrs Babu Lal and Another that “Unrebutted averments shall be deemed to be admitted.” Accordingly, the answer goes in favour of the complainant.

9. Now coming to the second point, we have gone through the documents filed by the complainant i.e. Ext. C(c) and C(d) and both the documents were issued by the O.P. No. 3.  It is seen from those documents as per Ext. C(c) the O.P. No.3 has received Rs. 6,700/- as installments dues whereas as per Ext. C(d) the O.P. No. 3 has shown the installment dues is of Rs. 6,300/- and from those documents it is found that there is a difference of Rs. 400/- on each installments.  Further the O.P. No. 3 has not justified the reason behind the same in their counter version also not stated why there is such difference between the two documents.  Hence we feel, the O.P. No. 2 cunningly joined hands with the counter person of O.P. No.3 have taken excess amount of Rs. 400/- on each installments.  Since the O.P. No. 2 is absent throughout the proceedings, we lost every opportunities to hear him to come to a conclusion, hence we accept the versions and documents filed by the complainant to the effect that the complainant has paid an excess amount of Rs. 400/- on each installment and the O.P. No. 3 has received the same through the O.P. No. 2.Accordingly, the answer goes in favour of the complainant.

10. Coming to the third point, we have gone through the documents filed by the complainant i.e. Ext. C(c) and Ext. C(d) and OP3(1) filed by the O.P. No. 3.  From the Ext. C(c) it is clearly evident that complainant on many occasions have deposited the installments dues on advance for 2 months (for three times on 19.04.2019, 19.06.2019, 16.08.2019) and 10 months (for one time on 19.04.2018), which were though reflected in the money receipts but have not reflected in the statement of account i.e. Ext. C(d) and OP3(1) which is a matter of surprise.  Further O.P. No. 3 is totally silent over the same and have not uttered any single word in their counter versions to that effect.  Whereas they are bound to clarify the same before the Court, but without doing so, they kept silent.  We think, the O.P. No.3 have not gone through the money receipts issued by them thorough their counter person properly and the complainant has also cleared all the 34 installment dues with the O.P. No. 3.  Accordingly, the answer goes in favour of the complainant.          

11. Coming to the fourth point, as per discussions made above, we think, since the complainant has cleared all the installment dues to the O.P. No. 3, it was the duty of the O.P.No. 3 to issue the NOC against the alleged vehicle with immediate effect.  But without doing so, the O.P. No. 3 put further financial pressure on the complainant, which is not justified and clear violation of the rules of the land.  Accordingly, the answer goes in favour of the complainant.   
     
12. Further allegation of complainant is that at the time of delivery of the vehicle, the O.P. No. 1 did not handover the documents related to vehicle and after making her wait for about 25 days they delivered the vehicle, but to make it rebute, the O.P. No. 1 did not adduce any documentary evidence.  In our view, the O.P. No.1 was supposed to handover the copy of invoice and sale certificate to the complainant at the time of delivery of the alleged vehicle, so that she could run the vehicle on road without any hesitation and not handing over the copy of sale invoice and sale certificate, the O.P. No.1 has proved deficiency in service on their part.
     
13. Considering the above discussions, we feel, the complainant is harassed in the hands of O.Ps for not providing better service at their end, which compelled her to seek redress before the Commission.  Hence this order.

                                                                                                               ORDER

The complaint petition is allowed in part. The O.P. No.1 is herewith directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- for not handing over the relevant documents to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the said amount shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. till payment.  The O.P. No. 3 is herewith directed to issue the NOC with immediate effect and to refund Rs. 231/- which was taken by the O.P. No.2 and also to refund Rs. 400/- on each installment and to pay Rs. 20,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 2,000/- towards costs of litigation.  And all the direction made to the O.P. No. 3 should be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the Rs. 50/- will charged for each day of delay till payment.  Further the O.P. No.3 is at liberty to recover the amount paid by them from the O.P. No.2, if they wish to do so.

        Pronounced in the open Court on this the 7^th day of July, 2021.

        Issue free copy to the parties concerned.