Complainant Ram Pal through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has prayed that the opposite party be directed to issue “No Due Certificate” and they be directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account mental agony, physical harassment and for deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Complainant had also claimed Rs.3,000/- as litigation expenses, all in the interest of justice.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he was registered owner of vehicle “Tata Magic” No.PB-06-Q-2058 and the same was financed with opposite party. It was pleaded that complainant had repaid the entire loan installments to the opposite party without any default and at present nothing is due towards him. It was pleaded that complainant approached the opposite party regularly and requested them for issuing the No Due Certificate but the opposite party putting the matter pending with one or the other excuse despite the fact that nothing is due towards the complainant. It was further pleaded that complainant was in dire need of No Due Certificate for further documentation and for removal of the charge of the loan from the R.C. of the vehicle but due to illegal act of the opposite party for not issuing the no due certificate complainant was suffering physically, financially as well as mentally for no fault on his part. It was also pleaded that it is clear cut deficiency gross negligence in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party who did not pay insured amount of to the complainant on false and flimsy grounds and without any reason or rhyme. It was next pleaded that being aggrieved by this illegal act of the opposite party complainant had also issued legal notice dated 21.1.2016 through his counsel to them and requested them to issue no due certificate to him within 7 days after the receipt of the same which was duly served upon the opposite party but despite it opposite party had not taken any action into the matter, rather two days back opposite party orally refused to handover No Dues Certificate to the complainant, hence this complaint.
- Notice of the complaint was served upon the opposite party who appeared through their counsel and filed the written reply by taking the preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable against the opposite party; that the jurisdiction of this Ld. Forum is barred as the complainant was using the vehicle in question for commercial purpose and earning profits only; that the jurisdiction of this Ld. Forum is barred to the complainant against the opposite party as there is an arbitration agreement between the complainant and the opposite party to raise all the disputes, issues, rights and liabilities before the Arbitrator only; complainant had not come to the Ld. Forum with clean hands and had filed this false and frivolous complaint against the opposite party with an ulterior motive to delay the payment of the due loan installments as such complainant is liable to pay the exemplary costs for this illegal act. On merits, all the averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs.
4. Counsel for the complainant had tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, affidavit of Rakesh Kumar Ex.CW2/A along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.
5. Sh.Satish Kumar Retainer Advocate had tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP1 along with document Ex.OP-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party.
6. We have thoroughly examined the available documentary evidence as produced on records so as to interpret the meaning and purpose of each document and also the scope of adverse inference for of some documents ignored to be produced by the contesting litigants in the back-drop of arguments duly put forth by the respective learned counsels of the present contestants. We find that the present dispute had arisen on account of the complainant’s demand of ‘No Dues Certificate’ in his allegedly liquidated Vehicle Loan A/c at the face of ‘arrears’ of Rs.39,600/- as claimed by the OP financers in the complainant’s Loan A/c with them & subsequent ‘refusal’ to issue ‘NOC’ (No Objection Certificate) to vacate the financer’s Lien.
7. We however find that the OP financers have in turn alleged the outstanding balance to be at: Rs.39,600/- as appearing in the Loan A/c statement (Ex.OP2) that somehow also exhibit having paid-in the full repayment along with the late payment & other penal charges etc. The details of Vehicle Loan, of its repayment and of its arrears etc have neither been produced by the complainant nor have the same been provided by the OP financers for reasons best known to both of them, alone.
8. However, it be reduced to writing that the OP financers have failed to produce some cogent evidence to prove its ‘bald’ claims of arrears outstanding in the complainant’s loan a/c and also its ‘bald’ defense of ‘commercial purpose’. Further, the present remedy as availed under the CP Act, 1986 being an alternative/additional remedy by virtue of its section ‘3’ shall be duly available even at the face of an otherwise accepted ‘arbitration’ agreement.
- Lastly, in the light of the all above, and the litigants’ exhibited inclination to reach a compromise, we are of the considered opinion that the present complaint shall be best disposed of by directing the OP financers to issue and keep in readiness the No Dues Certificate in the Loan A/c of the complainant within 15 days of the receipt of the copy of the present orders and deliver the same to him upon approach for the purpose.
- Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.
(Naveen Puri)
President.
ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)
SEPT. 09, 2016 Member.
*YP*
