DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.

Case No.315/2007 (Old case No.OC/591/02)

M/s Kiran Plastic Industries

B25, DDA Sheds, Okhla Industrial Area,

Phase-2, New Delhi                                              ….Complainant

Versus

1.       M/s Standard Chartered Bank

17, Parliament Street

New Delhi-110001

2.       Amit Thakkar

          Officer Incharge (Recovery)

          M/s Standard Chartered Bank

          17, Parliament Street,

          New Delhi-110001                                      ……Opposite Parties

                                                          Date of Institution          : 09.07.02                                               Date of Order        : 24.10.16

Coram:

Sh. N.K. Goel, President

Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member           

O R D E R

          Case of the Complainant, in brief, is that he had taken a car loan from the OP, vide loan account No.01226142 but he started receiving the threats from the OP. He settled the loan account after paying the balance due towards the Complainant. Thereafter,  the OP had to issue the NOC for the deletion of hypothecation as per the no dues certificate dated 24.04.02 but the OP instead of issuing the NOC started extending threats to the Complainant. The OP again sent a demand letter dated 17.06.02 making a demand of Rs.24071.141 (sic) to settle the loan account which was illegal and the OP did not issue the said NOC which amounts to deficiency in service on its part.  Hence it is prayed that OP be directed to issue “ the deletion of the hypothecation from the registration certificate of the car bearing No.DL3CQ0443”, to withdraw the demand letter dated 17.06.02, to pay Rs.2 lacs towards deficiency in service, Rs.2 lacs towards mental agony and harassment and Rs.50,000/- towards the cost of the litigation to him.

OP has inter-alia pleaded that after giving the concession to the Complainant who was irregular in making the payment a settlement was arrived at but the Complainant is now himself challenging the settlement by way of raising the present alleged dispute. It is stated that the prayer of the Complainant “to direct the OP to issue the deletion of the hypothecation from the registration certificate of the car bearing No. DL3CQ0443” itself shows that the account in question has already been settled and the complaint is infructuous. It is, however, pleaded that in the letter dated 17.06.02 it was specifically mentioned “in case you have already paid the outstanding dues on return of the above cheque, please ignore this communication” and, hence, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

Complainant has filed a rejoinder in which he has inter-alia stated that the no dues certificate for deletion of hypothecation from the registration certificate of the car had infact been done by the OP in the month of November, 2004 after the filing of the complaint. 

Sh. Jeth Mal Nahata, Proprietor of the Complainant has filed his affidavit  in evidence  and has relied on the documents Ex. CW1/P-1 to Ex. CW1/P-8. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. Syed Mansoor Zanvi, Attorney has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP.

 Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.

None has been appearing on behalf of the Complainant since 27.04.12. We have heard the Proxy Counsel for OP and have also gone through the record very carefully.

Complainant has not marked the Exhibit Nos. on the documents.

Admittedly, No Dues Certificate dated 24.04.02 copy Ex.-A filed on behalf of the OP and also Annexure P-3 filed on behalf of the Complainant have been issued by the OP to the Complainant in respect of the above stated car loan account.  In the said letter, it was stated “the NOC for the deletion of hypothecation shall be issued shortly.” However, it is not the case of the OP that thereafter any such NOC had been issued to the Complainant on any subsequent date.  Admittedly, letter dated 17.06.02 (Annexure P-5) had been issued to the Complainant. Annexure P-6 is the copy of a correspondence shown to have been sent by the OP to the Complainant on or about 21.07.02 in which the Complainant was asked to regularize his account or deposit cash payment in its Parliament Street Branch in two days. Annexure P-8 is the copy of a letter dated 06.08.02 issued by the OP to the Complainant whereby the Complainant was informed that the car loan account had been closed. Vide letter dated 05.08.02 (Annexure P-9) the OP had directed the Complainant to pay the arrears of amount towards the installments in the loan account No. 01226142 towards the overdue interest thereon and to produce the vehicle physically at their Parliament Office on 08.08.02 for physical verification/inspection and to bring the original registration book with insurance policy failing which it was stipulated that the OP bank would be constrained to initiate appropriate civil and criminal action against the Complainant. What does it show?  It clearly demonstrates that despite clearing all the arrears towards the said loan account and issuance of no dues certificate dated 24.04.02 the OP bank continued to issue letter after letter to the Complainant and even threatened him to face civil as well as criminal action. It clearly proves that the OP bank failed to issue the NOC for the deletion of hypothecation from the registration certificate of the car of the Complainant and infact the OP bank issued the same to the Complainant after filing of the complaint.

 It is not the body of the Complainant which has to looked into but is the soul of the Complainant which has to be considered while deciding the present complaint. It is, no doubt, that the complaint has not been drafted in a very proper manner but the gist of the complaint is to issue directions to the OP to issue NOC for the deletion of hypothecation from the registration certificate of the car loan.

Therefore, in our considered opinion, by not issuing the said NOC to the Complainant immediately after 24.04.02 or within a reasonable period thereafter the OP committed serious deficiency in service. By extending the threats to the Complainant the OP must have certainly caused mental agony and harassment to the Prop. of the Complainant. Therefore, we hold that the OP bank is guilty of serious deficiency in service.  The NOC has already been issued to the Complainant during the pendency of the complaint. Therefore, we direct the OP bank to pay Rs.50,000/- in lumpsum to the Complainant towards deficiency in service, mental harassment and cost of litigations within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which OP bank shall become liable to pay interest @ Rs.6% per annum on the amount of Rs.50,000/- from the date of said order till its realization.  Complaint stands disposed off accordingly.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations.  Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on   24.10.16.