Consumer Complaint No. 198 of 2016
Date of filing: 11.11.2016 Date of disposal: 11.9.2017
Complainant: Nazir Uddin Ahamed, S/o. Late Hazi Abdur Rasid, resident of D/130, Naim Nagar, PO: Old Court, G. T. Road, Durgapur-3, PS: Faridpur, Dist: Burdwan, PIN – 713 203.
Opposite Party: 1. Tata Motors Finance Ltd., Durgapur Branch, represented by its Manager, having its office at Ground & Mezzanine Floor, Nazrul Sarani, City Centre, Near Durgapur Cinema, Durgapur, Dist: Burdwan, PIN – 713 216.
2. Tata Motors Finance Ltd., represented by its Director, having its head office at I-Think Techno Campus Building, A, 2nd Floor, Off Pohkran Road 2, Thane West, 400 601.
Hon’ble President: Smt. Jayanti Maitra (Ray).
Hon’ble Member: Sri Pankaj Kumar Sinha.
Hon’ble Member: Smt. Nivedita Ghosh.
Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate, Suvro chakraborty.
Appeared for the Opposite Party No. 1 & 2: Ld. Advocate, Arindam Mukherjee.
J U D J M E N T
The present application u/S. 12 of the C. P. Act, 1986 is filed by the complainant for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by way of non issuing of no objection certificate.
The case of the complainant is that he purchased a Tata Nano STD in the year 2010 from BD Motors ltd. Durgapur, Burdwan for his personal use by taking financial help of Rs. 1,43,237=00 from the Ops after submission of documents and accordingly OP parties sanctioned loan bearing contract NO. 533636100 dated 29.12.2010 on condition that the said loan amount had to repay along with interest in 48 installments i.e. Rs. 3950=00 each started from 02.02.2011 and last date of installment was 02.01.2015 and after sanctioning the loan the BD motors delivered the vehicle to the complainant and accordingly the complainant started to repay the installment from 02.02.2011.
The complainant also alleged that during the period of payment some installments became due in respect of loan and for that Ops preferred an arbitration proceeding against the complainant where the arbitrator has been pleased to pass an award dated 17.12.2014 and the copy of order properly served upon the complainant and the Ops did not take necessary steps for execution of order and kept themselves mum. Thereafter the complainant requested the Ops for sending detailed account statement and the Ops sent account details on 29.8.2015 wherefrom the complainant came to learn that the amount of Rs. 1,22,864=00 was balance payable and accordingly the complainant paid the said amount to the Ops on 07.12.2015 with a request for issuing NOC in favour of him. But the Ops never paid any heed towards the request of the complainant and as such the complainant again sent a letter dated 22.12.2015 to the ops with a request for issuing the NOC. The complainant further alleged that on 13.01.2016 he received two letter for settle the loan account and it was settled for payment of Rs. 5005 as full and final settlement with further direction that the said amount will be deposited on or before 29.02.2016 and accordingly the complainant paid the said amount to the OP -1 on 13.01.2016 against proper receipt bearing no. 304800517 but inspite of final payment the Ops never issued any NOC and for that the complainant has been compelled to file the present claim application against them.
The cause of action of the present case arose on 13.01.2016 when the complainant paid the full and final settlement amount to the Ops.
The Ops no-2 Tata motors finance ltd. contested the present complaint by filing written statement where the said company totally denied the allegation as stated by the complainant, by saying that the complainant has no cause of action for filing the present application and the application is nothing but vague and imaginary one and filed only to harass the Ops.
The case of the OP is that there was an agreement in between the complainant and the Op and as per terms and condition of the agreement, the complainant must
produce all the relevant documents within 30 days from the disbursement of loan including RC book and insurance policy on the relevant asset but the complainant did not provide the copy of RC book to the op though Op repeatedly informed that there will be future complication if the complainant fails to provide the RC book and as the RC book was not submitted the NOC could not be issued in favour of the complaint. The Op admits that they are ready to issue no due certificate as there is no due payment and the complainant requested to accept the same. Accordingly the Ops prayed before the court for the rejection of the claim application filed by the complainant.
Now points for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to get NOC from the Ops or not?
Decision with reasons:-
To prove the allegation against the Ops the complainant filed his evidence through affidavit along with documents. The complainant stated in his evidence through affidavit before the court which is fully corroborated his complaint by saying that in the year 2010 he purchased a Tata Nano STD car bearing chassis no. MAT612201AYD14808 and Engine No. 273MPF101CZYE12660 from BD motors ltd Durgapur with the help of loan amount of Rs. 1,43,237=00 from the Ops on submission of required documents and accordingly loan amount sanctioned on condition that the said loan had to repay along with interest in 48 installment and each installment was Rs, 3,950=00 and as such loan started from 02.02.2011 and continued up to 02.01.2015.
The complainant also stated that due to non-payment of some loan amount the Ops preferred an arbitration proceeding and an award dt. 17.12.2014 duly served upon the complainant and thereafter the complainant when found that Ops kept themselves mum for taking possession of the vehicle inspite of award then he requested the ops for sending detailed account statement and as per statement he paid Rs. 1,22,864=00 to the OP-1 on 07.12.2015 and thereafter he requested the ops for issuing the NOC in favour of him.
The complainant also stated that he received two letters from the Ops on 13.1.2016 where he came to know that Ops wanted to settle the loan amount of Rs. 5005 as full and final settlement and he paid the said amount to OP-1 against the proper receipt and further stated that inspite of final payment the Ops never issued any NOC.
On the other hand they blocked the PAN card of the complainant to create the CIBIL due to which the complainant was restrained to take any further loan from any financial institution.
The complainant further stated that he is a bonafide consumer and he paid full amount after settlement the loan account as per direction of the Ops. But the Ops still never issued NOC inspite of receiving full and final settlement amount on 13.01.2016.
The complainant also files documents to show that he paid full amount as per claim of the Ops and no amount is due.
The Ops did not file any separate written evidence but prayed for accepting the written statement as their evidence. Now it appears that there is no dispute that the complainant purchased the vehicle after taking loan from the Op-2 with some terms and condition and it is also not disputed that the complainant properly fulfilled the terms and condition for payment of loan amount rather it is clear from the averment of OP there is no due amount of the claimant.. But only dispute arises for non issuing NOC.
The complainant wants to receive the NOC from the Ops as he paid full amount which is admitted by the Ops but the Op wants to issue no due certificate instead of NOC.
It further appears from the evidence as well as written statement the Ops have failed to issue NOC due to non-payment of RC as per clause no. 11.1 of the agreement executed between the parties.
It also appears that the complainant totally silent regarding the agreement executed between the parties, though he is duty bound to prove that he is entitled to receive NOC from the Op as he paid full and final amount as per direction of the OP parties. At the same time it is also clear that OP wants to issue “no due certificate” in favour of the complainant as actually there is no due amount from the complainant for loan amount.
Now it appears from the written version as well as evidence of OP parties that as per clause 11.1 of agreement, the complainant is bound to produce RC for NOC. So it appears in the mind of the court as to why the complainant failed to produce such type of vital documents before the Forum Court for ascertaining actual position as well as condition for received no objection certificate from the OP. As such the Court thinks that the complainant intentionally tried to conceal one of the most vital documents, reason best known to him.
On considering such type of attitude the forum court thinks that the complainant did not appears before the forum court for justice with clean hands and as such failed to prove the allegation against the Ops.
Hence, it is
O r d e r e d
that the present Consumer Complaint being No. 198/2016 be and the same is dismissed on contest without any cost.
Let plain copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per provisions of law.
Dictated & Corrected by me: (Jayanti Maitra (Ray)
President
(Nivedita Ghosh) DCDRF, Burdwan
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Pankaj Kumar Sinha) (Nivedita Ghosh)
Member Member
DCDRF, Burdwan DCDRF, Burdwan
