BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
BANGALORE (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 6th DAY OF AUGUST 2022
PRESENT
MR. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI : MEMBER
APPEAL NO. 498/2012
The Authorised Signatory, M/s TATA Motors Finance Ltd., Ground Floor, Giriraj Annexe, CTS.No. 167/2B, Ward No.III, Travelers Bungalow Road, Hubli. | ……Appellant/s |
V/s
Sri Shantagouda, S/o Sharanappa Navadagi, Aged about 45 years, Occupation : Business, Resident of Bantnur, Taluk : Muddebihal, District : Bijapur. (Served absent) | ..…Respondent/s |
ORDER
MR. RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. The appellant/Opposite Party No.1 has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Order dt.10.02.2012 passed in CC.No.140/2011 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bijapur.
2. The brief facts of the case are as hereunder;
It is the case of the complainant that the complainant had availed a financial assistance to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- for purchase of the vehicle bearing No.KA-28-A-5237 and agreed to repay in 34 installments from 21.03.2007 to 21.01.2010 and the first instalment was Rs.8,000/-, thereafter, the installment amount was Rs.7,500/- per month. The complainant was also agreed to pay finance charges of Rs.51,000/- in order to purchase the insurance has agreed to pay Rs.12,000/- and contract was entered on 28.02.2012. After disbursement of the amount, the complainant alleged that he was regularly paying the installments and he paid Rs.2,63,000/- towards the loan and subsequently he requested for issuance of No Due Certificate (NOC) with respect to the loan whereas the Opposite Party had insisted for payment of the balance amount inspite of payment of Rs.2,63,000/- and denied for issuance of No Due Certificate (NOC) for which the complainant approached the District Commission alleging deficiency in service and prayed for issuance of No Due Certificate. After trial, the District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the Opposite Party to issue No Due Certificate along with compensation and costs.
3. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant/Opposite Party No.1 is in appeal. Heard the arguments of both parties.
4. On going through the memorandum of appeal, certified copy of the order of the District Commission, we noticed here that there is no dispute that the respondent availed a financial assistance/loan of Rs.2,00,000/- and agreed to repay in 36 installments every month. As per the Opposite Party and statement of account produced before the District Commission, the respondent/complainant was not regular in repaying the loan installments. We also noticed here that the cheques which were issued for clearance of loan was also bounced as insufficient funds. Subsequently the respondent/ complainant had paid an amount of Rs.2,63,000/- towards loan and even after payment of the said loan, the respondent/ complainant is liable to pay the penalty and overdue charges for which after clearance of the loan dues, this appellant had demanded for the balance amount payable to the tune of Rs.43,393/-, but, the respondent/complainant denied to pay the said amount subsequently, he demanded for issuance of No Due Certificate. On perusal of Annexure-E, where we noticed that all the cheques issued by the respondent towards installments for the months of 11.11.2007, 04.03.2008, 09.07.2008, 30.12.2008, 31.12.2008, 20.10.2009 and 20.10.2009 were bounced appellant charged bouncing charges and overdue charges which the respondent/complainant is liable to pay as per the loan cum hypothecation agreement entered between them. The terms and conditions of the hypothecation agreement are binding on both parties. Though the respondent had paid Rs.2,63,000/- towards loan amount, he is liable to pay the outstanding due which were charged towards overdue charges and cheque bounce charges and without clearance of the said amount, the appellant is not in a position to issue No Due Certificate. The District Commission failed to consider that the respondent/complainant is still in due of Rs.43,393/- and directed the appellant to pay issue NOC. Without clearance of the entire due from the respondent/complainant, the rejection of the No Due Certificate by the appellant does not amounts to deficiency in service. The District Commission has made an error in allowing the complaint is not just and proper, accordingly interference is required. Hence, the following;
ORDER
The appeal is allowed. Consequently, the complaint is dismissed.
The amount in deposit shall be refunded to the appellant.
Forward free copies to both parties.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
KCS*
