Punjab

Patiala

CC/15/58

Surinder Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBOP - Opp.Party(s)

Sh A S Kathuria

15 Jul 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

 

                                      Complaint No. CC/15/58 of 12.3.2015

                                      Decided on:         15.7.2015

 

Surinder Kumar aged about 42 years, son of Amar Nath, resident of shop no.42, New Grain Market, Sirhind Road, Phase-1, Patiala. 98728-03240.

 

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

 

State Bank of Patiala, Industrial Estate, New Grain Market, Patiala, through its Branch Manager.

                                                                   …………….Op

 

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

 

                                      QUORUM

 

                                      Sh.D.R.Arora, President

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

                                      Smt.Sonia Bansal,Member                                

                                                                            

Present:

For the complainant:      Sh.A.S.Kathuria, Advocate

For Op :                          Sh.Anand Puri,Advocate              

                                     

                                         ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

1. It is the case of the complainant that he had purchased the car bearing registration No.PB 11-BJ-4752, after having availed of the loan from the Op, vide  his loan account No.65173050029, which was maintained with the Op. The complainant had deposited the entire loan amount with the bank and nothing was due against him.
2. The complainant  sold the car and he required the ‘No Due Certificate’ for getting the entry of HPA deleted from the certificate of registration of the car. For that sake, the complainant approached the Op but the officials in the bank put him off under one or the other pretext. The complainant served the Op with a legal notice dated 29.1.2015 with a request to issue the ‘No Due Certificate’ but despite the notice having been served upon the Op, the ‘No Due Certificate’ was not provided . The act of the Op in not having provided the ‘No Due Certificate’ is  said to be a deficiency in service as also an unfair trade practice, which resulted into the harassment and the mental agony experienced by the complainant, for which he is entitled to be compensated in a sum of Rs.one lac. Accordingly, the complainant  brought this complaint against the Op under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( for short the Act) for a direction to the op to issue him the ‘No Due Certificate’ in respect of the said loan account; the Op be directed to pay him Rs.one lac by way of compensation on account of the harassment and mental agony experienced by him and further to award him Rs.22000/- as costs of the litigation.
3. On notice, the Op appeared and filed the written version. The Op has not denied the complainant having purchased the vehicle having raised a loan from the Op. The complainant had not been paying the installments regularly. When the account of the complainant was going to be NPA, the complainant had adjusted the loan account and after the clearance of the loan account, a certificate dated 2910.2014 was given by the Op to the complainant. It is denied by the Op that the complainant has sold his vehicle. No document regarding the same has been placed on file. After the adjustment of the loan account, the complainant had taken the clearance certificate/No Due Certificate, from the Op. It is denied that the complainant had approached the Op and requested the officials to issue the ‘No Due Certificate’ and that the officials put him off under one or the other pretext. The complainant was requested by the Op to obtain form No.35 ( notice of termination of agreement  of the hire purchase lease/hypothecation) but the complainant intentionally did not visit the bank to receive the same. Form no.35 was not sent by the Op to the complainant because of the reason that the signatures of the complainant were required to be taken on the same. After the complainant got the Op served with a legal notice dated 29.1.2015, the Op had requested the complainant to receive form No.35 but the complainant failed to collect. Thereafter, the Op sent letter No.509 dated 10.3.2015 through it’s counsel alongwith form No.35 and another copy of ‘No Due Certificate’/clearance certificate, although the original ‘No Due Certificate’ had already been provided to the complainant on 29.10.2014. The said letter was received by the counsel for the complainant on 12.3.2015. However, the same was not intentionally received with a malafide intention so as to file the present complaint and in order to avoid the liability in respect of his CC Limit account.
4. It is also the plea taken up by the Op that the complainant has also availed a CC Limit of Rs.26,70,000/- which was extended from time to time. A sum of Rs.30,40,444.96 was due and outstanding in the said CC limit account of the complainant as on 20.3.2015.The complainant is also liable to pay future interest. The complainant has not regularly maintained the CC limit and his said loan account was declared NPA on 28.1.2015. The complainant delivered the cheque No.085295 dated 4.2.2015 for Rs.15lac towards part payment drawn on ICICI Bank but the said cheque was not honoured, in respect of which the Op had issued a notice dated 12.2.2015 to the complainant. A complaint is also being filed against the complainant. After controverting the other allegations going against the Op, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5. In support of his complaint, the complainant produced in evidence Ex.CA, his sworn affidavit alongwith the documents Exs.C1 to C3 and the complainant closed his evidence.
6. On the other hand, on behalf of the Op, it’s counsel tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, the sworn affidavit of Sh.Rajinder Goyal,Manager of the Op alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP10 and its counsel closed the evidence.
7. The complainant filed the written arguments. We have examined the same, heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence on the file.
8. It is the plea taken up by the Op that when the complainant had adjusted his loan account on 29.10.2014, he was issued the clearance certificate/No due certificate. The Op has also produced in evidence Ex.OP1, the photo copy of the same. Ex.OP1, does not bear any number of the clearance certificate although the column is meant for the same on the top  left side. The same also does not bear any endorsement of the complainant with regard to his having received the same. The Op has also not produced any record sowing the issuance of the No Due Certificate/clearance certificate by the bank, in favor of the complainant. Afterall, one or the other register might have been maintained by the  OP bank in which the entries regarding the issuance of the No Due Certificate/clearance certificate are made.
9. It is important to note that the complainant had got the OP served with the legal notice dated 29.1.2015, Ex.C2, sent through registered post on 30.1.2015 , as would appear from Ex.C3, the postal receipt, whereby he called upon the Op to issue the clearance certificate/No Due Certificate in respect of the loan account of the car. It is the plea taken up by the Op that thereafter, the Op requested the complainant to receive the Form no.35 but to no effect. Thereafter the Op sent letter No.509 dated 10.3.2015 to the counsel for the complainant alongwith form No.35 as also copy of No Due Certificate/Clearance certificate although the original of the same had already been provided to the complainant on 29.10.2014. The said letter was received his counsel on 12.3.2015.It is also the plea taken up by the Op that No Due Certificate/clearance certificate sent to the complainant was not intentionally received by him and with a malafide intention he brought this complaint on the same day i.e. 12.3.2015 just to avoid his liability in respect of CC Limit Account.
10. In Ex.OP2, the copy of the letter dated 10.3.2015, written by the Branch Manager of the Op to Sh.A.S.Bagrian, counsel for the complainant, it is stated that the bank had already supplied copy of letter dated 29.10.2014 (Ex.OP1) to his client showing the adjustment of the loan. The letter was also sent with duplicate form no.35 duly signed by the bank for necessary action at his end. Ex.OP3 is the copy of the letter sent through registered post on 12.3.2015, to the complainant containing the copy of the letter,Ex.OP2 dated 10.3.2015, which was received back un claimed. The Op has also produced in evidence Ex.OP7, the photo copy of form no.35. Form no.35 is a document which has to be executed both by the registered owner of the vehicle as also the branch manager of the bank having advanced the loan and the same is  to be submitted to the Motor Vehicle Registering Authority stating that the agreement of hire purchase/lease/hypothecation entered into between them stands terminated and they request the endorsement made in the certificate of registration , in respect of the vehicle to be cancelled. We really fail to understand as to what prevented the Op in getting form no.35 signed by the complainant on 29.10.2014, when the complainant had adjusted the loan account and when the Op allegedly issued the clearance certificate,Ex.OP1. We are of the considered view that the Op could not  issue the clearance certificate Ex.OP1 on 29.10.2014 without having obtained the signatures of the complainant on form no.35 and therefore, the plea of the Op that the Op had issued the ‘No Due Certificate’ to the complainant    on    29.10.2014    seems   to   be   after   thought and this can be said with certainty because the ‘No Due                        Certificate’,  Ex.OP1 does not bear any number of the register in which the same might have been entered by the Op.
11. It was expected of the OP to have issued the No Due Certificate either on 29.10.2014 when the complainant had adjusted the loan account or within a reason time thereafter, either having sent the same through post to the complainant or against any endorsement of the complainant obtained in the record.
12. The plea taken up by the Op that the complainant is the holder of CC Limit account with the Op and he was due to pay certain amount outstanding in the same has nothing to do with the case of the complainant. In case the complainant was under a liability in respect of the CC Limit account, the Op had the legal remedy to proceed against the complainant and therefore, the said plea taken up by the Op appears to be advanced just to show that the complainant was a defaulter of the Op without any benefit to be derived by the Op on that count.
13. Had the Op already delivered the No Due Certificate/Clearance Certificate to the complainant on 29.10.2014, there was no necessity for the Op to have sent the copy of the same to Sh.Amrinder Singh Bagrian, Advocate, counsel for the complainant , in response to the legal notice dated 29.1.2015 ( Ex.C2) got sent by the complainant against the Op. May that as it be we are not satisfied in the absence of any cogent and convincing evidence including the dispatch number or the number of the register meant for ‘No Due Certificates’ assigned to Ex.Op 1 that the same was issued  by the Op in favor of the complainant on 29.10.2014.
14. We do not find any substance in the plea of the op that the complainant has not disclosed regarding the sale of his vehicle because the Op was under an obligation to provide the ‘No Due Certificate’ on the complainant having adjusted the loan account even if the same was not demanded by the complainant but in our case it is the positive plea taken up by the complainant that he approached the Op in connection with the issuance of the No Due Certificate but the same was not provided to him.
15. By filing the present complaint against the OP, the complainant is not to get anything in respect of the CC Limit Account because he has to discharge his liability qua the amount outstanding in the CC Limit Account and he could not get any relief from the Forum in respect of that count. Consequently, we are of the considered view that it was a deficiency of service on the part of the Op in not having issued the No Due Certificate, in respect of the loan account No.65173050020 despite the complainant having adjusted the loan account on 29.10.2014. The complainant certainly suffered the harassment and the mental agony on account of the deficiency of service on the part of the Op. We accordingly accept the complaint and direct the Op to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- by way of compensation on account of the deficiency of service and to provide the No Due Certificate, in respect of the aforesaid loan account within seven days on receipt of the certified copy of the order. In view of the facts and circumstances of the complaint, the same is accepted with costs assessed at Rs.2500/-. The costs be paid to the complainant within a period of one month on receipt of the certified copy of the order.

Pronounced

Dated:15.7.2015

 

                   Sonia Bansal                 Neelam Gupta                        D.R.Arora

          Member                         Member                                  President