BEFORE THE MANDYA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANDYA PRESENT: 1. SIDDEGOWDA, B.Sc., LLB., President, 2. M.N.MANOHARA, B.A., LLB., Member, 3. A.P.MAHADEVAMMA, B.Sc., LLB., Member, ORDER Complaint No.MDF/C.C.No.91/2009 Order dated this the 4th day of November 2009 COMPLAINANT/S Sri.G.Jayaramu S/o Late A.Girigowda, R/o Bramhadevarahalli Village, Honakere Hobli, Nagamangala Taluk, Mandya District. (By Sri.P.Mahalingaiah., Advocate) -Vs- OPPOSITE PARTY/S 1. Shriram City Union Finance Ltd., No.286/48, 2nd Floor, Indira Towers, 7th Cross, Wilson Garden, Bangalore 560 027. 2. Shriram City Finance Ltd., Opposite to Silver Jubilee Park, Opp. To Railway Station, 3rd Main Road, Mandya. Rep. by its Branch Manager. (By Sri.H.S.Nagendra., Advocate) Date of complaint 24.07.2009 Date of service of notice to Opposite parties 19.08.2009 Date of order 04.11.2009 Total Period 2 Months 15 Days Result The complaint is allowed, directing the Opposite party to return the RC and key of the vehicle and to issue clearance certificate and NOC to the Complainant within six weeks and to pay cost of Rs.1,000/- to the Complainant. Sri.Siddegowda, President 1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for a direction to the Opposite party to return the original RC, clearance certificate, NOC and original key of the vehicle with compensation of Rs.25,000/- alleging deficiency in service. 2. The case of the Complainant is that he availed loan from the Opposite party finance Company to purchase a two wheeler by making down payment of Rs.14,000/- and the loan was repayable in equal monthly installments of Rs.1,298/-. For the payment of the installments, he had issued cheques drawn on Post Office Savings Account. The Complainant has made payment of the loan amount regularly both through cheque and also byway of cash. After discharge of the loan, the Complainant has taken back the unpresented cheques and also the security cheque from the Opposite party. It is the bounden duty of the Opposite party to return the original R.C., NOC, clearance certificate and key of the vehicle when the Complainant has cleared the entire loan. In spite of his requests and legal notice dated 24.06.2009, the Opposite party has not complied and hence, the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service. Therefore, the present complaint is filed for the above claim. 3. The Opposite parties have filed version admitting the loan sanctioned to the Complainant and repayment by installments. According to the Opposite party contention, the Complainant had issued cheques for monthly installment of Rs.1,238/- for payment of 30 installments and Complainant has not issued any cheque for security of the loan. The Complainant has not paid the loan installment in proper time, amount of the some of the cheques were not realized on the ground of insufficient funds and then the loan recovery persons use to inform the same to the Complainant and then, the Complainant has paid the cheque amount and for that the Complainant has not paid Rs.250/- for the cheque towards collection charges. The legal notice of the Complainant was properly replied stating that the Complainant is due of Rs.8,006/-. The Complainant has not furnished any documents as per the reply to show the clearance of the loan. Therefore, the Opposite party is not liable to return the RC book or NOC. Further, there is no cheque numbers mentioned in the S.B. pass book of the Complainant, except showing Rs.1,298/-. The Opposite party is liable to return the RC, NOC, if the Complainant produced the proper documents about the clearance of the loan. The Opposite party has not committed deficiency in service and therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 4. During trial, the Complainant has filed affidavit and produced the documents Ex.c.1 account extract and also bank pass book and the receipts issued by the Opposite party and legal notice and reply of the Opposite party. The Opposite party has filed affidavit. 5. We have heard both the sides. 6. Now the points that arise for our considerations are:- 1. Whether the Complainant has cleared the entire loan? 2. Whether the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service in not returning the R.C. key of the vehicle along with NOC and clearance certificate? 3. Whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief sought for? 7. Our findings and reasons are as here under:- 8. POINTS NO.1 & 2 :- The undisputed facts borne out from the materials on record are that the Complainant availed vehicle loan from the Opposite party and loan is payable in monthly installment of Rs.1,298/- and the Complainant had issued 30 cheques and the Complainant has made some payments through cheques and also through by cash for which the Opposite party has issued the receipts. 9. Now according to the Opposite party, the Complainant is due of Rs.8,008/-. But according to the Complainant, he has discharged the entire loan. From the perusal of Ex.C.1 savings bank account of the Complainant, 15 cheques from number 0744941 to 955 are encashed from the account of the Complainant. As per the receipts issued by the Opposite party admittedly the Complainant has made payments of 14 installments. As per affidavit of the Opposite party, as per the agreement, the Complainant has paid the entire loan amount. According to the Opposite party, it is ready to return the RC and NOC to the Complainant, the inconvenience caused to the Complainant is not intentional, but it is oversight. The Opposite party has not produced any account to prove that the Complainant is still due of Rs.8,008/-. Of course, the Complainant has not deposited the loan installments in-time after bouncing of the cheque and Opposite party has not charged any penalty for late payments. So, when the loan is completely paid by the Complainant, it is the bounden duty of the Opposite party to return the R.C. book and key of the two wheeler deposited with the Opposite party to the Complainant along with NOC and clearance certificate. But, when the Complainant got issued a legal notice claiming the same, the Opposite party sent reply stating that the Complainant is still due of Rs.8,006/- and in case, the payments are made earlier to furnish the proof of payment to clarify the issue immediately and they will return the necessary documents. Naturally, it is a company. Every payment made by the customer will be on the records and it cannot be accepted. That on what basis the Opposite party has stated that the Complainant is due of Rs.8,006/- as mentioned in the reply. Before the Forum, Opposite party has not produced any account extract to prove the balance of loan, but in the affidavit, Opposite party has admitted the clearance of the loan entirely and hence there is no necessity for the Complainant to furnish the documents to satisfy the clearance of the loan. Therefore, it is proved that the Complainant has cleared the loan and Opposite party has not returned the RC and key of the vehicle with NOC and hence, the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service. 10. The Complainant has sought for direction to the Opposite party for return of the RC of the vehicle with key and also to issue clearance certificate and NOC and compensation of Rs.25,000/-. Considering the facts of the case, since the Opposite party has not charged any penalty for the delay of payments made by the Complainant by way of cash and the Opposite party is burdened with the charges for bouncing of the cheques issued by the Complainant, it is not reasonable to award compensation. 11. In the result, we proceed to pass the following order; ORDER The complaint is allowed, directing the Opposite party to return the RC and key of the vehicle and to issue clearance certificate and NOC to the Complainant within six weeks and to pay cost of Rs.1,000/- to the Complainant. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum this the 4th day of November 2009). (PRESIDENT) (MEMBER) (MEMBER)
