Order No. 20 Dt. 20.06.2014

         This is an application U/S. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by the petitioner Nibaran Kumar Roy praying for directing the O.Ps to issue NOC in respect of Car No.  WB-60C/2133 and compensation for a sum of Rs.100000/- for pain and mental agony and loss of social prestige and litigation cost.

                     The case of the petitioner is that his owner of Scorpio GLX Car bearing No. WB60C/ 2133 and he approached the O.Ps for a loan for refinance of Rs.328000/- and the O.Ps provided the same and also the petitioner deposited the entire loan amount within the schedule time i.e. from 17.10.2007 to 31.07.2010. It is further mentioned that due to ill health he failed to repay the loan within specified due time for which the O.Ps threatened to re-posses his vehicle. However, on 31.07.2010 the petitioner liquidated the loan amount but the O.Ps did not issue the NOC. The petitioner visited the office of the O.Ps for several times and on 29.06.2013 one Surajit Roy, staff member of O.Ps received all the money receipts relating to repayment (27 pages ) and bank statement (4 pages) and then pushed him out of the branch threatening repossession on 29.06.2013. The petitioner suffers from pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss and from mental agony and harassment and his cause of action arose lastly on 29.06.2013 and then he filed the case. 

          The O.P. Nos. 1, 2 and 3 contested the case by filing a single written statement denying the allegations made against them and submitted that the petitioner is not a ‘Consumer’ as he purchased the Vehicle for commercial purpose and not for self-employment or earning livelihood and the petitioner runs his transport business and approach the finance company for refinance. A loan of Rs.328000/- was granted  and Rs.78720/- as financial charges and Rs.24000/- towards insurance provision of the said vehicle and thus making a total amount of Rs.430720/-. The repayment was to be made in 35 installments starting from 02.10.2007 to 02.08.2010 and also it was agreed that the petitioner was to pay Rs. 15493/- in the first installment and Rs.15475/- for the second two 11 installments and Rs.13626/- for 12 to 22 installments and Rs.13623/- for rest installments i.e. 23^rd to 35^th. The petitioner did not make payment in time as he admitted also and so the O.P. cannot issue NOC unless full payment is made and this false case be dismissed with cost.  

On the above cases of the parties the following issues are framed:-

1. Whether the case 78/2013 is maintainable in its present form ?
2. Whether the case is barred by limitation?
3. Whether the petitioner has any cause of action to file the case?
4. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.?
5. Whether the petitioner is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?

:DECISION WITH REASONS::

Issue Nos. 1,2,3, 4 & 5

            All the issues are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion and to skip of reiteration and also all these issues are interrelated and interdependent.

           In support of her case the petitioner Nibaran Kumar Roy  deposed before this Forum as P.W.-1 and submitted that his owner of Scorpio GLX Car bearing No. WB60C/ 2133 and he approached the O.Ps for a loan for refinance of Rs.328000/- and the O.Ps provided the same and also the petitioner deposited the entire loan amount within the schedule time i.e. from 17.10.2007 to 31.07.2010. It is further mentioned that due to ill health he failed to repay the loan within specified due time for which the O.Ps threatened to re-posses his vehicle. However, on 31.07.2010 the petitioner liquidated the loan amount but the O.Ps did not issue the NOC. The petitioner visited the office of the O.Ps for several times and on 29.06.2013 one Surajit Roy, staff member of O.Ps received all the money receipts relating to repayment (27 pages ) and bank statement (4 pages) and then pushed him out of the branch threatening repossession on 29.06.2013. The petitioner suffers from pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss and from mental agony and harassment and his cause of action arose lastly on 29.06.2013 and then he filed the case.  Besides the oral evidence of PW-1 he also filed documents which are marked as Ext.-1 being payment receipts 25 pages, Ext-2 being the certificate of insurance, Ext.-3 being the statement of Tata Motor Finance showing the installment schedule and Ext.-4 being advocate letter from Tata Motors. The O.Ps did not adduce any oral evidence but filed documents which are made Exts. A, B and C being the loan agreement and repayment schedule etc.

          This Forum heard the Ld.Counsel for the petitioner as well as the Counsel for the OPs. The Counsel for the petitioner submitted before the Forum that his client has already repaid the whole loan amount of                  Rs.430720/- yet the O.P. financial company did not issue the NOC in favour of the petitioner causing hardship to him. The Counsel for the O.Ps submitted before the Forum that the petitioner has not repaid the whole amount and there is due of Rs.20950/- and NOC be issued as soon as the payment is made. 

          This Forum kept in mind the submissions of the Ld.Counsels for the petitioner as well as of the O.P and kept in mind the respective cases of the parties and the oral as well as documentary evidences and finds that as PW-1 the petitioner Nibaran Kumar Roy submitted before the Forum that he took loan of Rs.328000/- and he repaid the whole amount including the financial charges and insurance amount within the schedule date i.e. from 02.10.2007 to 02.08.2010 and in total within 31.07.2010 he paid Rs.430706/- P.W.-1 categorically denied that the O.Ps. would get Rs.20950/- from him rather he made excess payment and he would get Rs. 3541 from the Company. On scrutiny of the documents exhibited before the Forum it is noticed from the documents of the O.Ps made Exts. A, B and C and from the Ext.-1 series being 27 money receipts showing payment by petitioner before the O.P. Company that he made a total payment of Rs. 414551/- to the O.Ps within the schedule date of repayment as conceded by the company  and the actual dispute lies with Rs.16169/- being not paid and outstanding expenses being Rs.4781/- and thus the total overdue is Rs.20950/- as said by the company. The petitioner on the other hand submitted that he made extra payment of Rs.3541/-. However, this Forum on scrutiny of the money receipts filed by the petitioner before the Forum showing his payment and also the documents filed by the O.P., Finance Company showing collections from the petitioner clearly shows that the petitioner made full payment of Rs.430720/-as the petitioner though paid Rs. 11000/- by cash on 24.05.2010 by receipt no.ZI090769 yet the same was not mentioned anywhere and thus the total payment comes to  Rs. 430720/- and there is nothing due from the petitioner to the O.P. and no excess payment also made by the petitioner who is entitled to get the NOC from the O.P. Finance Company. 

          In view of above discussions and findings this Forum finds that the petitioner succeeded in proving his case and is entitled to get the relief as prayed for.

           In the result, the claim case succeeds.  

           Court fee, paid is correct.

           Hence,                            ordered,

that Malda D.F.C. Case No. 78/2013 be and the same is hereby allowed on contest but with cost considering the circumstances of this case. The petitioner is entitled to get the NOC as prayed for and the O.P. Finance Company is directed to issue NOC in respect of Car No. WB-60C/2133 to the petitioner within 30 days from the date of this order failing the petitioner would be at liberty to put the order in execution. Regarding compensation for mental agony and harassment this Forum passed no order as the petitioner miserably failed to put a clear cut accounts before the Forum.

          Let a copy of this order be given to each of the parties free of cost.