BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD
F.A.No.618 OF 2009 AGAINST C.C.No.43 OF 2008 DISTRICT FORUM CHITTOOR
Between:
1. Manager
Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd.,
Akurdi- Pune-035
2. Manager
Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd.,
D.No.19-3, 1st Floor, 7th Cross
Srinivasapuram, Tirupati Town
Chittoor Dt.
Appellants/opposite parties no.1 and 2
A N D
1. Sri E.Erfan Ali S/o E.Mustafa Saheb
R/o D.No.5-87, Z.P.High School Street
Rompicherla Mandal, Chittoor Town
and District
Respondent/complainant
2. Sai Ram Enterprises, Kadapa Road
Piler Town and Mandal, Chittoor District
Rep. by its Manager,
Respondents/opposite party no.3
Counsel for the Appellant Sri G.Srinivas
Counsel for the Respondent No.1 Sri A.Jyotheeswara Reddy
Counsel for the Respondents No.2 Served
QUORUM: SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
AND
SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER
MONDAY THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN
Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Hon’ble Member)
***
1. The Opposite Party is the appellant. The respondent no.1 filed the complaint seeking for issuance of No-Objection Certificate and damages of `50,000/- with interest.
2. The respondent no.1 approached the opposite party no.3 in the month of December 2003 for purchase of Bajaj Caliber Motor Cycle. The appellant no.2 sanctioned loan of `30,000/- to the respondent no.1. The respondent no.1 agreed to pay the loan in 12 equated monthly installments @ `2,500/- per month from January 2004 to December 2004 and the appellants no.1 and 2 have taken the post dated cheques from the respondent no.1. The respondent no.1 paid the entire installments and requested the appelalnts to issue No-Objection Certificate. The appellant no.2 gave original key and original registration certificate but not issued the No-Objection Certificate. The appellant no.1 got issued notices dated 1.2.2005, 1.5.2005, 7.3.2005, 1.9.2005 and 24.2.2007 stating that the respondent no.1 is still overdue an amount of `2,500/- to the appellants and demanded for payment of the amount. The respondent no.1 got issued legal notice dated 29.2.2008 to the appellant no.2 and the respondent 2 calling upon them to issue NOC and to pay compensation and costs.
4. The opposite parties were set exparte.
5. The respondent no.1 has filed his affidavit and the documents marked as Exs.A1 to A8.
6. The District Forum has allowed the complaint and awarded an amount of `15,000/- towards compensation and `1,000/- towards costs on the premise that the appellant had presented the cheque bearing No.158605 on 7.12.2004 i.e, beyond the stipulated period and the cheque was honoured as per the statement of the account of the complainant issued by SV Grameena Bank. The appellants have received entire amount and failed to issue NOC to the complainant.
7. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the opposite parties filed the complaint contending that their advocate could not attend the District Forum on 9.4.2008 due to the strike by the RTC and that the loan was granted to the respondent with zero rate of interest and the appellants immediately after completion of the contract handed over RC and second key of the vehicle to the respondent. The non-credit of amount `2,500/- under cheque No.158605 dated 10.5.2004 was result of non-receipt of information from the appellant’s banker whereby notice was sent to the respondent no.1 informing him of possibility of initiating legal action against him which was not initiated and the NOC was issued on 7.5.2008 to the respondent.
8. The points for consideration are:
1) Whether the appellants had handed over NOC to the respondent immediately after receipt of sale consideration from him?
2) To what relief?
9. POINT NO.1 The respondent no1. had entered into loan agreement No.442/2335 on 3.12.2003 and availed finance of Rs.30,000/- for purchase of Bajaj Caliber 115. The loan amount was repayable in monthly equated instalments at the rate of Rs.2,500/- over the contract period of 12 months and the rate of interest of the loan amount is 0.00% per annum. The respondent no.1 had regularly paid the EMIs to the appellants. The first appellant had issued notice to the respondent stating that the cheques issued by him in discharge of the loan amount were honoured except the cheque bearing No.158605 as seen from the non-deposit of amount in the appellant’s account and informed the respondent that NOC would be issued to him within 90 days from the date of receipt of the amount of `2500/- pertaining to the fifth instalment along with penal charges. The respondent had got issued notice through his advocate bringing it to the knowledge of the appellants that he had paid the entire instalments and his bank account statement would establish payment of entire instalments. He had requested the appellants to hand over NOC, original key and RC of the vehicle of which the appellants have handed over the RC and original key of the vehicle and retained the NOC with them.
10. The appellants had issued another notice informing the respondent that if he fails to make payment of `2500/- with penal interest in lieu of the loan instalment due of `2500/- in discharge of which cheque for `2500/- issued by him was dishonoured and if he fails to pay the amount covered under the cheque the appellants would initiate penal action against him. Likewise, several letters, several notices had been sent to the respondent requesting him to pay the amount covered under the cheque bearing No.158605 and bringing to his knowledge of the possibility of initiating penal action against him in the event he fails to make payment of the amount along with penal interest.
11. A perusal of the extract of bank statement issued by Sri Venketeswara Grameena Bank, Erravari Palem Branch shows that the entire EMIs were cleared of by encashment of all the cheques issued by the respondent in discharge of the loan amount. In the circumstances, the appellants ought to have handed over the NOC along with the original key and RC to the respondent. However, the first appellant had delivered possession of the NOC to the respondent only on 7.5.2008 which by itself is sufficient to hold the appellants negligent as also to have rendered deficient service. The appellants had handed over the NOC of the vehicle to the respondent after the respondent had filed the complaint and the notice issued by the District Forum was received by them.
12. The District Forum had awarded an amount of `15,000/- as compensation besides a sum of `1,000/- towards costs. The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the cost of the vehicle is `30,000/- and the appellants had provided the finance at zero rate of interest. The respondent has not substantiated loss caused to him for the delayed delivery of NOC. Admittedly, the respondent had availed the loan at zero percentage. The appellants had not gained any advantage by granting loan to the respondent. The lapse on the part of the appellants in issuing NOC to the respondent beyond the reasonable time after receipt of the entire sale consideration of the vehicle has to be considered in contract to the no profit-no gain transaction while assessing the amount to be awarded as compensation to the respondent.
13. The respondent has paid the last instalment till 31.12.2004. The appellants had issued NOC on 7.5.2008 i.e., after lapse of 3 years and 4 months from the date of receipt of last EMI. It could be understood as to respondent no.1 not suffering any hardship if the appellants had issued NOC within a reasonable time from the date of receipt of the entire sale consideration of the vehicle. The appellants had compelled the respondent by not issuing NOC to him, approach the District Forum by filing the complaint. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that an amount of `10,000/- if awarded as compensation for delayed issuing of NOC to the respondent would be appropriate and reasonable. The amount of `15,000/- awarded by the District Forum is reduced to `10,000/-.
14. In the result the appeal is partly allowed by modifying the order of the District Forum and reducing the amount awarded as compensation from `15,000/- to `10,000/-. The costs of `1000/- awarded by the District Forum is maintained. There shall be no order as to costs in the appeal. Time for compliance four weeks.
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
Dt.24.10.2011
KMK*
