JASVINDER SINGH filed a consumer case on 19 Feb 2019 against SHRI RAM CITY UNION FINANCE LTD. in the North East Consumer Court. The case no is CC/70/2017 and the judgment uploaded on 22 Feb 2019.
Delhi
North East
CC/70/2017
JASVINDER SINGH - Complainant(s)
Versus
SHRI RAM CITY UNION FINANCE LTD. - Opp.Party(s)
19 Feb 2019
ORDER
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST
Briefly put, the fact relevant for disposal of present complaint is that the complainant had purchased a motorcycle Suzuki Hayate SS bearing registration no DL-13-SN-6062 from M.D. Motors, Krishna Nagar, Delhi on 19.02.2016 for Rs. 49,750/- and paid Rs. 24,480/- in cash on 16.02.2016 and 18.02.2016 and for rest of the amount, had availed of vehicle loan from OP vide loan agreement CDEDHTW1602260016 dated 26.02.2016 on payment of EMIs of Rs. 2,080/-. Thereafter the complainant approached the OP for foreclosure of his loan in January 2017 and asked for NOC from OP. However, in NOC dated 08.02.2017 issued by OP, the complainant’s PIN Code number and vehicle number were incorrectly mentioned and therefore the subject NOC had to be returned and OP gave another NOC on 11.02.2017 but the same again bore incorrect PIN number the complainant asked the OP vide written request to return his five cheques & to issue correct NOC but the OP failed to do either. Therefore, the complainant feeling aggrieved at the unfair and illegal acts of the OP, alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency of service was constrained to file present complaint praying for issuance of direction to the OP to release the NOC with correct Pin code and to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs. 80,000/- for harassment, mental agony & pain and Rs. 25,000/- towards cost of litigation.
Complainant has filed copy of RC issued by transport department GNCTD, copy of payment receipts Rs. 22,480/- paid by the complainant to M.D. Motors in cash for part payment for subject bike, copy of delivery receipt no 4574 dated 18.02.2016 issued by M.D. Motors, copy of tax invoice dated 19.02.2016 issued by M.D. Motor, copy of insurance certificate for policy cover given by New India Insurance Co. w.e.f 19.02.2016 to 18.02.2017 and renewed from 19.02.2017 to 18.02.2018, copy of Andhra Bank passbook of savings bank account of complainant bearing no 109210100024885 highlighting EMI debits of Rs. 2,080/- in favour of OP towards vehicle loan from 15.04.2016 to 08.08.2016 and entry dated 05.01.2017 for payment of Rs. 28,550/-, copy of NOC dated 28.01.2017 highlighting incorrect RC number and PIN code number, copy of NOC dated 11.02.2017 highlighting incorrect pin code number, copies of form no. 35 for notice of termination of hypothecation, copy of hand written correspondences dated 17.01.2017, 10.02.2017 and 18.02.2017 by complainant to OP for release of NOC and copy of application by the complainant dated 15.02.2017 to mediation centre, Patparganj Delhi against OP for release of NOC.
Notice was issued to the OP on 17.03.2017. OP1 & OP2 entered appearance on filing of correct address by complainant and filed their written statement on 04.01.2018 in which OPs took the preliminary defence that OP2 was the branch office of OP1 which was closed in 2012. OP submitted that the complainant had approached the OP1 to avail two wheeler loan facility in February 2016 and a vehicle loan of Rs. 39,000/- was disbursed to the complainant vide Loan agreement dated 26.02.2016 to be repaid in 24 EMIs of Rs. 2,080/- each w.e.f. 07.04.2016 to 07.03.2017 to be deducted from the complainant’s bank account maintained with Andhra Bank. The complainant approached OP in January 2017 to foreclose the loan and issued a cheque of Rs. 28,550/- but due to a technical issue, an extra EMI was deducted on 07.01.2017 due to ECS cycle and for refund of the same, the complainant had sent a letter dated 17.01.2017 to OP after which NOC dated 28.01.2017 was issued by the OP to the complainant and also the refund of extra EMI through cheque on 08.02.2017. However, on complainant’s intimation that vehicle no was incorrectly written on the said NOC, OP issued another NOC dated 11.02.2017 correcting the same. But it was only after the present complaint was filed before this Forum that the OP came to know that there was a PIN code issue too with the said NOC i.e. instead 110051, the PIN code was written as 110031. In defence, the OP submitted that in the Loan Application Form, Promissory Note and Schedule 1, duly signed by complainant, the PIN code was mentioned as 110031 and the complainant never informed the OP that the same was incorrect. However, the OP was willing to provide fresh NOC with correct PIN code and prayed for dismissal of complaint denying any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on its part. OP has attached copy of SPA, copy of Loan Application Form, Copy of Loan Agreement, Copy of Schedule 1 and Copy of Promissory note executed between complainant and OP highlighting PIN code entry 110031 on Loan Application Form and Schedule 1 attached therewith.
Rejoinder in rebuttal to the defence taken by OP was filed by the complainant in reassertion of his grievance against OP and placed on record copy of NOC dated 25.12.2017 bearing correct registration no and correct PIN code number but incorrect manufacturing year 2015 whereas the year of manufacturing was 2016 therefore the same was returned by the complainant to OP1 on 15.05.2018 with direction to OP1 to get the correct NOC on 25.07.2018 with no error whatsoever.
Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by both complainant and OP1. OP1 brought fresh NOC dated 13.06.2018 on 25.07.2018 in favour of complainant bearing correct model number, registration number, and PIN code number and the same was handed over to the complainant.
Written arguments filed by the both parties in reassertion of their respective grievance / defence and matter was listed for oral arguments since the complainant pressed for compensation for harassment suffered by him for non issuance of NOC and repeatedly being handed over incorrect NOCs by OP.
We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and have thoroughly scrutinized the documentary evidence placed on record before us. The loan documents filed by OP1 clearly show that the PIN code number was written as 110031 in the documents however, there is no justification for writing incorrect vehicle number and manufacturing year in the NOC which was repeatedly erroneous from the time it was first issued in January 2017 till May 2018 when the manufacturing year was incorrectly written. Therefore, more than one year lapsed / went by / got wasted in repeated issuance of NOC after NOC and error after error therein, twice before filing of the present complaint and twice after filing of the same. The same has, in our view caused harassment to the complainant in as much as firstly he was constrained to file the present complaint due to issuance of two consecutive incorrect NOCs and thereafter yet again two incorrect NOCs were issued during the pendency of the complaint before this Forum. The same is deficiency of service & negligence on part of OP1 and though the relief claimed in the original complaint is partly satisfied to the extent of issuance of NOC, for act of negligence & deficiency of service, we direct the OP1 to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for taking one an half year to issue correct NOC to the complainant as compensation for mental harassment and agony inclusive of the cost of litigation. OP2 is already deleted as having closed down its operations. OP3 is a proforma party being seller of the subject vehicle and no relief is prayed or payable against it and therefore no order passed against OP3. Let the order be complied within 30 days by OP1 from the date of receipt copy of this order.
Let a copy of this order be sent to complainant and OP1 free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced on 19.02.2019
(N.K. Sharma)
President
(Sonica Mehrotra)
Member
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.